Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout2016-05-12_Council_Public Agenda PackagePage 1 of 3 MUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CHESTER CHESTER MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Thursday, May 12, 2016 at 8:45 a.m. AGENDA 1. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER. 2. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING: 2.1 Council – Thursday, April 28, 2016. 3. COMMITTEE REPORTS: 3.1 Recreation and Parks Committee – Wednesday, May 4, 2016 – Councillor Connors a) Motion for consideration. 3.2 Any Other Committee Reports. 4. MATTERS ARISING. 4.1 Branding Options: a) Presentation from Nancy Hatch regarding VOCTADA Survey (appointment at 9:00 a.m.). b) Sperry Design – Final Submission 4.2 Report from Chief Building Official dated April 12, 2016 regarding proposed amendments to the NS Provincial Building Code Regulations regarding small home-based businesses. 4.3 Request for Decision from CAO dated May 3, 2016 regarding Vertical Expansion Analysis of Landfill 5.1 Presentation/Grant Request from Karen Hooper, Chester Art Centre regarding update on the Art Centre renovations and request for funding for the next phase – landscaping (appointment 9:15 a.m.) 5.2 Presentation/Grant Request from Alicia Van de Sande, Seniors Safety Coordinator regarding Lunenburg County Senior Safety Program (appointment at 9:45 a.m.) 5.3 Presentation from Michael Graves, United Way of Lunenburg County (appointment at 10:15 a.m.) a) 2016 Funded Programs by Geographic Areas. Note: Presentation has been rescheduled to b) 2016 Funding by Impact Areas May 26, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. c) Council Presentation from Michael Graves. – Revised Cost. (Council Meeting – April 14, 2016). 4.4 Request for Direction – Award of Services under Engineering Services – Pre-Qualifications. 4.5 Request for Decision dated May 5, 2016 regarding South Shore Tourism Team 2016. 5. CORRESPONDENCE: Page 2 of 3 d) Municipal Government Presentations 2016. e) United Way of Lunenburg County Programs and Projects. 5.4 Letter for consideration from Aspotogan Heritage Trust regarding Sidewalk Expansion. 5.5 Letter from Gerald Gagnon dated April 28, 2016 regarding Our Health Centre. 6. NEW BUSINESS: 6.1 Presentation from residents regarding Canadian Radiocommunication Information and Notification Service (CRINS) as follows: a) Robert White - appointment at 10:45 a.m. b) Jim Pattillo - appointment at 10:55 a.m. c) Dennis Connolly – appointment at 11:05 a.m. APPOINTMENTS ARRANGED In Camera following regular session under Section 22 of the MGA if necessary 7. ADJOURNMENT. 9:00 a.m. Nancy Hatch regarding VOCTADA Survey 9:15 a.m. Karen Hooper, Chester Art Centre regarding grant request. 9:45 a.m. Alicia Van de Sande, Lunenburg County Seniors Safety Program. 10:15 a.m. Michael Graves, United Way of Lunenburg County – Presentation 10:45 a.m. Robert White – Presentation regarding CRINS 11:00 a.m. Jim Pattillo – Presentation regarding CRINS 11:15 a.m. Dennis Connolly – Presentation regarding CRINS 6.2 Request for Direction from Director of Engineering and Public Works dated April 20, 2016 regarding Future Central Water - Village of Chester- Rescheduled to COW May 19th Meeting 6.3 Wind Reserve Evaluation Criteria. 6.4 Request for Decision dated May 3, 2016 regarding 2016 Election: a) Election Voting By-Law Amendment. b) Appointment of Assistant Returning Officer. 6.5 Request for Decision – Award of Proposal for LiDAR Collection and Digital Elevation Model. (T-2016-010). 6..6 Invite to attend Joint Council meeting regarding Governance / Restructuring- Options and Process- May 25 (tentative date) Branding Survey The Municipality of the District of Chester Sponsored by VOCTADA April 2016 Voctada Survey - Chester Municipal Logos 
 Monday, April 18, 2016 Page Voctada Survey - Chester Municipal Logos Monday, April 18, 2016 Page Voctada Survey - Chester Municipal Logos 
 Monday, April 18, 2016 Page Voctada Survey - Chester Municipal Logos 
 Monday, April 18, 2016 Page Voctada Survey - Chester Municipal Logos Monday, April 18, 2016 Page VOCTADA Survey – Chester Municipal Logos Logo: Comments ©VOCTADA 2016 1 • Time for a logo, not a crest to market the municipality. • The first few logos look very corporate. They are not welcoming or inviting. They look like something is being produced. Not attractive for tourism. • None of them are great but could live with the last two, at lest they have some movement. • I prefer the second last one and then the last one,but have no use for any of the others.However,I recently saw a variation by Debbie Houser of the present logo ( as shown above ) with a few more symbols representing the various districts in our municipality,which I think has more potential than any of the above. • Do not use treasure.... Already taken! • Municipality needs to be above Chester and larger then Chester. Tree needs to be larger, the green side more dominate then blue side • We can do better... Contact NSCAD • Stay with the old one IF this change is costing us ++++ • I realize the municipality is about more than the ocean but the symbols on the first few don't mean anything to most people and they are too boring. The three with the multi colour sails are an improvement. The last one with the hills and trees is inclusive but not attractive. The two with the stylized wave are very dynamic and attractive and my choice. • I think the attempt at a diamond in the first few options is a terrible idea (perpetuates an attitude of Chester as a playground for the wealthy. The 3rd, 5th and 6th look like labels on a liquor bottle. Clearly I think the 10th and 11th have more vibrancy and style in their simplicity. The current one looks like a logo for boys scouts. • the existing logo doesn't seem to offend anyone--it might not inspire, but it is inclusive • I guess #11 is my choice, but I didn't see any way to choose it. Am I supposed to click on it or what? There seem to be far too many choices to get any meaningful results from this survey What kind of survey requires your name and e-mail address? You won't get as many honest opinions that way. And please ensure my e-mail address is not used for anything else. Thanks • I feel none of these choices fit Chester, although wonderful anyone from outside of Chester or is not informed about Chester, would not understand what those colorful sails are. The keys, the gem's, I all so understand what you are doing but they make people think "not in a good way". The last thing we need is tourists or anyone for that matter wondering what this logo means and or why we used it! I feel this is a very important decision, this is what the world will see! • they all express the word Chester too large and the typefaces are over used...The two up from the bottom one is the same typeface and design as the Chester Golf Club VOCTADA Survey – Chester Municipal Logos Logo: Comments ©VOCTADA 2016 2 • Some of these have elements that are not bad, but none are my choice. • I like shortened to Chester Municipality. I did like "Nova Scotia's Treasure" Could that be added to the 2 I liked? • None of these! • Combine the two I marked with the best. the municipality of CHESTER (with the key hole) Nova Scotia's Treasure (in a less scrolled font) • Some of these are very cluttered. One looks like it comes from UNB's Logo which would be a copyright infringement. Chester should have a strong, simple logo. • A few very nice ones • There is nothing wrong with the old one • what is wrong with our present logo? • Any logo has to reflect more than just the Village of Chester, therefore, if these are the choices, the ones with the sail and tree combined are clearly the choices to make. • Honestly, I'd like to see the Municipality get away from the sail boats. We are far more than a seasonally playground for a few people in the Village of Chester. Wake Up and see the community spirit around you and work together to show some diversity and acknowledge all the municipality. The gem representing the 7 districts is clever! Ditch the sails and move toward something uniquic to the municipality. • this survey has the opinion of husband and wife. We both prefer the tagline checked below. However we disagree on the logo.I prefer the ones with the sun, water, sails and forest. • I like the original since it reflects areas of the Municipality that are not solely showing a seaside village. The is so much more to see or do than sailing. I hate the first 2 since the geodesic design means nothing to me as an individual. I believe a successful logo is one where those viewing it would have to be educated before grasping the meaning. Overall I feel like this is a collossal waste of money as we already had an attractive, meaningful, simple Logo. Perhaps just a little tweeking of the original would have sufficed. • Not impressed at all !!! Hope you didn't pay for any of this. If you did it was a complete waste of our money. The gem stones are worse than laughable • The old one is the most appealing. • I like the last one the best because it is colorful and inclusive. The white lettering might be difficult to read. • #'s 1, 2 and 4 look like company/corporate logos; nothing inviting as in wanting to stop and visit this area as it looks industrial; #3 and #5 are both better, although with the lack of cursive VOCTADA Survey – Chester Municipal Logos Logo: Comments ©VOCTADA 2016 3 writing being taught in schools it is the future visitors that will lack the eye for the 'print' in these logos (there are many studies to refer to on cursive's future with logoing) #'s 7, 8, 9 and 10 all have strong attributes, especially incorporating the forest industry but the emblem looks more like a fire, ... there is something confusing about each of them; the last shield emblem, although I actually really like it seems a bit old fashion, especially in terms of ageing over the next 30 years of its possible life span; #8 has definite eye appeal, ... is colourful, has cursive, which is attractive, a green line could be swooped under the sails to add the forestry/golf/ land vision; #6 is very appealing and probably the logo with the longest lifespan as it is clean and simple • Number 10 is clear and to the point. says to me we have sun sea and beautiful land. • We believe the following taken from 2 designs reflects the concepts and history of our Municipality: Design from #10 Wording: "Chester Municipality" from #10 Scroll with wording: "Nova Scotia's Treasure: from #6 Design #12 is a shield and different from a logo • Very small to see on phone! • "Municipality" is a political / governance word & description which is distracting when considering what should be included in a single objective and small space of that a logo or "signature" as would be this objective. I would strongly consider replacing the Municipality approach wit . . . " Est. 18++ " with Chester's earliest established known date. • Council never should have wasted Taxpayer money on this crap. There is nothing wrong with the existing logo. • Ok ...So how do you pick one of the above logos ? 5th one from the top would be my choice. • I prefer to stick with the current logo until an appropriate one is designed. • None of these really blows me away. It looks like any other community. Don't we want it to be eye catching and say how vital and interesting we are? We have so much to offer but none of these logos does that. • Very, very close between 10th and 11th (counting from the top down) but 10th feels more open. 11th image is a bit small. • Hard for me to say I actually "hate" something. "Dislike" is more appropriate from my perspective. I think we need a change from the old logo. I'm delighted the "Municipality of the district of" is being dropped. A mouthful! The stylized logo I prefer ("best") is aesthetically pleasing and conjures up images of things I associate with Chester: sunshine, sailing, nature, ocean. It isn't exclusively summer, which is a notion we want to convey. The logo I chose as "better" is definitely less sexy and daring, but tolerable. The others lack appeal to me. • All rather cold and sterile...not warm or inviting. • The only one I really like is the one I noted as best. VOCTADA Survey – Chester Municipal Logos Logo: Comments ©VOCTADA 2016 4 • The old one is better by far but could be reworked or changed . We really need to know why the Municipality wants a logo. How and what will be promoted with it. Tourism promotion is one thing. Attracting businesses and permanent citizens to live here is quite another. • I like the current crest but it is dated. Especially when you see some other municipalities snazzy logos. I'm happy to see some tress incorporated in the new logos. A little less sailboat would be great and a little more on the whole municipality would be a good focuse. Love the recent fishing boats from northwest cove featured on modc's articles. Sailboats are a 3 month a year thing and then those people pull up stakes and go home leaving the rest of the municipality to support local business and volunteer to keep communities going. • Logo needs to be colourful and bold, not boring • I like the clean lines and color blend of my favourite pick • Not sure of the strategy that would make need for a change from the exciting serviceable logo. • Chester • I think it is important want ever the Logan is that it brings people to Chester for example . Treasure is good becuse for people that may not know it called that becuse people clam there gold there . But what every it is got to stand out so people visted this area • I think that the first four choices, frankly, are garbage. I don't see the point in using some sort of modernized logo for a township that prides itself on heritage and tradition. This smacks of imitating the new Halifax logo, which in my opinion is trash. It does nothing to "brand" the town, it doesn't speak to the tradition of Chester at all, and there is nothing in my mind that is appealing about it. The block like font is cold and conveys no spirit at all. Very mechanical. • Hire a graphic designer of this century and get a logo tastefull and restrained. The village of Chester a suburban copy store or an engineering company, quite a few wealthy well travelled individuals support the economy here based on leisure, and I don't believe most would resonate with these clunky Badges. I think the sign on route 103 before exit 7 announcing chester is tasteful and appropriate graphical depiction of chester • Do any of these define the true nature of Chester? We are a water community as well as a community. • This whole thing is wasted money in my opinion. Water would be money well spent to attract people here and make business possible. • Chester • The last indicates it as the Municipality of the District of Chester... Which I think is important - not to estrange the rest of the municipality. it is not a simple logo, but quaint. Not always a bad thing. I love the red in the bunch of sails - that could be a great logo all by it self ... Although it is fairly generic it is pleasing to the eye and does relate back to the community. • The next-to-last two logos I feel are best, as they are not too busy, and represent Chester for the many things it has to offer, not defining it solely by sailing. Other logos seem too vague, or VOCTADA Survey – Chester Municipal Logos Logo: Comments ©VOCTADA 2016 5 require too much dissemination to figure out what they are saying, or suggest the wrong things. The logos I like are easily distinguishable, and brand ready, without looking like they were recycled. Having been a graphic artist, I've seen plenty. Frankly, I wanted to spend time on designing my own offering, but that time was hard to find. • I would prefer bloock letters as opposed to scrolled or hand writing since in my opinion it would be easier to read when driving by in are vehicle. • There is nothing above that grabs me, really. The shield could work but I don't like the lettering is right nor legible from afar. I suggest you keep some of the land and road on the shield but could have more of the sea, islands and a few boats rather than just one. Maybe some lavender as well. • I really like the old logo because it was drawn by former staff member and its simplicity reflects the easy-going nature of living here - I wish the consultants would have taken this logo and just enhanced it with a glossier look and up to date font style and colour. • I am having trouble with this site. I think the last one, which is the current logo, is a bit "fork art". The last two logos just above it are rather nice. The rest of them are horrible. Particularly the first three. If everyone has as much trouble with this question and this questionnaire you are not going to achieve your goal. • Too harsh for the comments section? All in all pretty weak choices. You really want my opinion? The first two are just pain ugly. I have no idea what the designer was going for. I hope no one was paid for that. The third makes absolutely no sense. A keyhole? Why? Because we're a treasure? What/who is the key? Visitors? People who live here? Weak. The fourth makes me think of a swastica but maybe that because I want to eliminate most of these choices. The fifth would be great if Chester was a beer. The sixth I'll get to in a sec. The statue of the Unknown Soldier at the Cenotaph has more personality than the font in the 7th, 8th and 9th choices. I almost chose the 10th but there's nothing about the colours that reflect Chester Municipality, though I do like the concept. The 11th is too abstract and I have the same complaint as the colours in the 10th. And I'm sorry if this is offensive but I've always thought the last option, #12, looked like it was drawn by a 4 year old. We have world class artists in our village and THIS has been representing Chester?? Unforgivable. If I had to choose: The 6th one down, with the single blue sailboat WITHOUT the awful tagline. Maybe add a few more boats. I'm sure this rant hasn't made me any friends but the whole process has just made me sadder than the morning after the New Years levee. • I love the colours of the one I chose. It represents the municipality's ocean and inland natural resources traditions. I see a sail and the woods. The ones with the keys are too boxy - they refer to oak island treasure but that is not who we are ... we are a treasure definitely however our culture is around the ocean and inland with agriculture and the forest industry. • Simpler and less busy. When I think of Chester I think of old fashioned signage, simple. Quaker and Meisner's, or the view of those from the front harbour could create a simple line drawing that speaks of a town on the water and is certainly iconographic to the place. But I'm myself tired of the surf, winds and sails icons as they are over used. Hate the orange against the blue which speaks of something more Latin. I prefer the original icon as it makes Chester VOCTADA Survey – Chester Municipal Logos Logo: Comments ©VOCTADA 2016 6 seem inviting whereas the others seem rather demanding. And the colours better suit the notion that Chester was originally marketed on and which should not change into something too full blown. The only font that works for Chester is the seraph in number four and of that in eight and nine. A deep green colour could also just play against a complimentary blue without all those primary rainbow boats which look Fischer Price to me. I don't think it's necessary to tell people what to expect whether in the form of treasure, work, play, tears or laughter -but find an attractive simple line that captures Chester and work on marketing that. The space between Meisner's and Quaker is limitless- let that rest in peoples' heads as to the possibilities the Village presents. • The original symbol is representative of our Municipality of Chester and I wouldn't mind if you keep it for another 30 years. • While some of these designs are better than the original one we saw, all of them could have been produced by anyone using any computer and free software found on the internet. The word "treasure" is commonly used in reference to Mahone Bay and Oak Island and it is curious why was used. • The old one is recognizable, familiar, and very good....fix up the text so its clear and stick with it. • Our Municipality logo should represent both land and sea. Would love a splash of red in my top choice. • The fifth logo references Chester's seashore and sailing heritage, while maintaining simplicity. Would suggest eliminating the banner around "nova scotia's treasure," but having the letters curve below "Chester" parallel to the letters above. • there must be sailing.. that is our brand, what people see. the shield or other symbols feel like bureaucracy, not inviting to tourists and residents. the one with multiple colored sails is OK but they should be more aligned, not look like they are collapsing into one another. thank you for inviting public opinion. this is the only way to gain buy in. good luck • The one where I checked 'best' could be done with brighter colors. The layout is very appealing but dull when it comes to color. A logo should have a least a little bit of 'pop' to make it memorable after all a brand is all about recognition. It would look awesome with color and the live....work....play tagline • The old crest is the best only with a larger sailboat • Not really crazy about any of them. I'm not convinced spending money om rebranding has any value at all. • Chester Municipality is not just sailing..even though Chester village may be. The logo needs water and trees..not sailboats and a tree. This seems more about Chester getting a logo.. not the whole municipality. (Can you tell I am not a Chesterite? I live in Blandford.) • Really like the incorporation of water/boats and land/trees. • Don't like the Nova Scotia's Treasure byline, too much like Mahone Bay VOCTADA Survey – Chester Municipal Logos Nova Scotia's Treasure: Comments ©VOCTADA 2016 1 • Sounds like a reference to Oak Island treasure and doesn't really speak to the benefits or what is unique about the village. It's generic • Don't like it. • It reminds me of oak island. • It's insipid, and not accurate - NS has lots of treasures. • too many of the "Nova Scotia's Treasures already exist. Something • it is already in use for Mahone Bay • Too close to other town's tag line. Need something reflecting our position on the ocean... • I don't know for sure if any other municipality uses that exact tag line but often the tag line on other signs is odd. People do read them and I've chuckled at many. As long as it isn't odd or look like we had to try too hard to find something appropriate. I don't have a better idea but perhaps we could find something a bit more creative. • Consistent with the use of the diamond and keys mentioned above: The tag line along is more appropriate for Oak Island. Chester needs to build up it's village to offer more to visistors before we can call ourselves a 'treasure'. • it is disrespectful --why would MODC even consider using something that Mahone Bay has used for years? ('A treasure since 1754')? • If you are determined to use this, don't you dare use the logo that doesn't capitalize the first letters of Nova Scotia. I think it's #6. Upper-case N and S please so we don't look like we texted it. • Very similar to Mahone Bays logo • it is the same as Mahone Bay's You can see it on the Hwy sign at exit 10 • Kind of harps on the Oak Island thingy but hey, if it brings people in……... • Treasure really only represents Oak Island in my opinion. Chester is sailing. New Ross is the farm. And so on. We need a logo that represents all parts of our community. • Meaningless!!! Argumentative!!! Untrue!!! • Having a gemstone in the centre of the logo feeds into the misconception that everyone in Chester is wealthy • It is a very overused motto, and does not describe our unique ommunity VOCTADA Survey – Chester Municipal Logos Nova Scotia's Treasure: Comments ©VOCTADA 2016 2 • Our Municipality, the entire Municipality, IS a treasure, therefore, very appropriate. • WOW! Clever! Good play on words way to use OAK ISLAND mystery. Very uniquic to the municipality. • there are too many NS treasures. • Live...Work..Play.. Describes the community. Lots of playing here but we do live and we do work here. • It's a very vague statement. Again educating the public to the possibility that the phrase is an inference to Oak Island seems inefficient marketing. • Completely inappropriate. Has nothing to do with Chester. Sounds conceited! Doesn't Mahone Bay use "a treasure since 1754" although not in the logo. Why do you even need a tagline!!!! • Yes I feel it describes our municipality but is too similar to Mahone Bay's tag line. • It sounds super egotistical......we may be "A" Nova Scotia treasure, but not the only one.... • I think it is OK, but not sure it is necessary . • Nova Scotia has many "treasures"....why are we the only one?...who deemed us so? • Nova Scotia's Treasure is perfect! So much to play on: Oak Island, the wealth of sailing opportunities, all the recreational activities that are treasures to experience, the people, the food, the treasured artisans, our athletes ... the list is endless • So how much did Council pay the Copywriter for this brilliance? $10,000? Not that it's inaccurate.... But there's treasure (beauty) up and down the Nova Scotia coast. And, sure, we've got Oak Island, but still, it's just so bland as a tagline. • Western Shore should have that tag line .after all Oak Island is there . • Sort of unimaginative but not sure what's better. Maybe"best kept secret" • Unique community • The Town of Mahone Bay uses the tagline "A Treasure since 1754" and I don't believe we should co-opt this. I also do not like part of the rationale behind choosing the term "Treasure" being Chester's "wealthy people". • We are a treasure! Mostly hidden from view with the highway not going through the village directly but just skirting the edge. We enjoy the small village atmosphere, but need some big village amenities (ie more accommodation for visitors, more shops to service people all year). • It for sure is a treasure, just not sure it applies or is original • Inappropriate. VOCTADA Survey – Chester Municipal Logos Nova Scotia's Treasure: Comments ©VOCTADA 2016 3 • Do not need a slogan • It does describe the municipality, but it's a very boring and uninspired tagline. • It's bland and sounds generic. • Very generic and unoriginal. Rip-off from Mahone Bay sign. Does not describe the Municipality. • Too similar to Mahone Bay. Unoriginal. Says who? • Yes! Definitely! Love the word "treasure" as play on oak island. New Ross Farm definitely a treasure. Fishing villages on hwy 329 treasure. Thank heavens we didn't focus on snobbery in the village. Definitely not a treasure. Haha • Mahone Bay is already using "treasure" in their branding • It's too trite and syrupy. • Yes, I like that line... but it doesn't seem to appear on the logos I actually like. • It does not describe the municipality at all. It makes the logo very busy. I believe that tag lines are unnecessary and they make a town or municipality look desperate (blueberry capital of the world?) It might have reference to oak island but let's face it, while oak island fastinates some it's really 1 very small place in the municipality that I don't want to draw attention too. • ...treasure belongs to Oak Island sea, sail, sunsets, history, trees, churches, • How about "A treasure to discover" or something like that? I find "Nova Scotia's Treasure" a bit pretentious. • All communities claim these kinds of titles. If everyone's "special" then nobody is! • Well I would say yes becuse of Gold River ware they say there is gold there. But the sign could also have boats on it to for race week becuse people like to sail . And there could be blue for water . • weak • very white bread • I don't understand what it means. Would other Nova Scotians agree or laugh at Chester for making the presumption? • I get it. I see what is being driven at with that slogan, and while I don't hate it, I'm not in love with it. Ambivalent would be the best word for it. But it is fairly accurate, and sort of segues well from "Canada's Ocean Playground", so I see the theme. Plus the whole Oak Island connection. VOCTADA Survey – Chester Municipal Logos Nova Scotia's Treasure: Comments ©VOCTADA 2016 4 • Cheesy. Chester is a classic summer place, and architectural Chester is a classic summer place, a place of scenic charm, perhaps suffering from exclusivity, which is also why it is the way it is and makes economic driver • Why would we have the effrontery to say that Chester is a treasure. This applies t so many communities in Nova Scotia. • Personally I like Nova Scotia's treasure. • It sounds like reality tv. There are so many places in Nova Scotia that typify that remark. MODCis a different place and not worthy of that platitude. We have taken on: wind farms , made a recycling ( a really annoying but) an important consideration for the way we live, have been proactive on a number of social and environmental issues before the rest of the province even thought about it. ( that maybe an exaggeration, however) . The Municipality is beyond its size in its concern for the future of the Municipality and its inhabitants. Thanks to the councillors and the residents . • Chester is a unique place and is as good as it gets for summer residents and even winter is not that bad • Its a good tie-in to the history and legends of the area, but it rings a bit off, like we're missing something. It is a hidden gem, loaded with beautiful scenery and wonderful people. A select number of shops and skilled craftsfolk provide unique goods, but its not enough to put us on the map, as many other communities are following the same formula. Golf, sailing, etc., are seasonal draws, so what does Chester offer year-round, or at least do better than what other town are doing? What can it improve on? Let's put it on the map, boldly! • i think a more original tag line would have worked this one is very simplistic • Boring! • Nova Scotia's Treasure?! Hasn't that been Mahone Bay's tagline since... well... forever? • Unoriginal and boring. • With the logo I chose I think it still fits although wonder if there is another tagline that would be more appropriate. • Doesn't Mahone Bay call itself a Treasure, too. The facile play on local themes is a tired approach. • Nova Scotia!s treasure sounds twee and silly to me, too cute&self-aggrandizing. Besides the treasure is supposed to be over at Oak Island. Let them have it. • Presumptions - there are many treasures in NS. VOCTADA Survey – Chester Municipal Logos Nova Scotia's Treasure: Comments ©VOCTADA 2016 5 • I think it says we are special at the expense of other communities. I like it but...might be too cheeky. • I didn't like it at first until it was explained to me how it came about now I'm okay with it. When you are trying to bring attention to the entire municipality I can't help but think something like 'small communities-big heart' or 'small communities working together......' might say more to an outsider. I know it's a little cliché but a start to something that says a bit more than 'Treasure' • I don't think we should say treasure • Too close to Mahone Bay's. Dull. • I dont like taglines. This one may not be bad but we are too close to Mahone Bay who has a "treasure" version. • It appears that the town is piggybacking off the "supposed" treasure on Oak Island, which has been 'milked' enough already. Give it a rest. • While our municipality is a treasure to us, I don't think it gets the word out to others as to what we have to offer here. VOCTADA Survey – Chester Municipal Logos Live, Work, Play: Comments ©VOCTADA 2016 1 • this is an overly common idea and tagline. I can't really comment or be helpful without knowing what it is you are trying to communicate • Just as bad • It is not as unique. The treasure represents oak island. • yes, it fits the municipality better - for both residents and tourists • Terrible ! • But still weak • Weak. Nothing special • Both of these tag lines are similar to other tag lines that have been used before in other places around the province. It would be nice to have an original tag line . • It is better. • It's important to suggest that people in Chester are 'working people' not just summer residents and vacationers. Yet, we offer good quality of living and fun...we are indeed playful. • but not really acceptable: the concept of 'live, work, play communities' is widely used by urban planners (& realtors to market mixed-use neighborhoods). Do we need a tagline? Some branding literature suggests words or phrases should be avoided. • Live work play is too generic, and I'm not sure it hasn't been used elsewhere already. • I do not know why you do not use them both!! One suggest's live here and the other come visit. What is trying to be said? This tagline at least involves both. • Overused • Been used before???!!! It's what we want but it's very unoriginal. Live… work…. play…. farm…. sail….. hike….. build…..create…..employ….. the list is endless! • I think that Chester is written too big as compared to Municipality. We are supposed to be representing the whole municipality, not just Chester. • Undistinguished. Everyone does that. • Which is not very good. I would search for something better. • Which is not very good. I would search for something better. • Just as Bad as. Be creative VOCTADA Survey – Chester Municipal Logos Live, Work, Play: Comments ©VOCTADA 2016 2 • maybe live, work play and STAY • To generic. What municipality all of Canada can't say the very same thing....waawaammppp waaawwwaa...that blows. • Nice phrase, but doesn't reflect the assets that allow one to live, work and play here. I believe Theatre / The Chester Playhouse should be prominent in the logo as an attraction that is especially important to promote for the benefit of the entire community. • Which means just as bad! • Too generic...could apply to any place in the world. • "Just as Good" as in the sense Chester has the potential to be a wonderful bedroom community to the larger HRM, ... so Live, Work, Play but it is not as all encompassing as Nova Scotia's Treasure which can be applied to numerous scenarios that present themselves here in the MDC area • I feel this is too trendy . • I think 'Live...Work...Play' is overused and a tagline for a lot of different places. • Sorry to take so long in replying. The screen did not come in properly last time and would not accept my choices or decision • First problem is that it's way overused as a tagline for places across North America (If council payed money for this tagline it should demand its money back!!!). Other problem is that it's misleading--I mean, most residents would say, "good luck finding it," with regard to the "work" component. • $35k gets you few choices , will I get cut if I put forward a few ? " Sail with us " , Life by the Sea " , "In our own Time " , "Breath Easy " ,Slow down with us "........More ?? • It says a lot more about the entire Municipality. I'd rather keep this for the time being until the right logo/tagline is chosen. • Our village is capable of all that and more. The living and playing part is very evident in the housing available and the different sporting items. We are rich in artistic possibilities with the ART Centre and the Playhouse both offering venues for social and a diversity of artistic endeavours. We are growing as a community with good work opportunities from local employers who see the possibilities here. • Love it • Missing a "just as bad as" box (though the use of these words don't come easily - would rather "not inspiring." ) Neither tagline is very imaginative and don't capture the essence of Chester VOCTADA Survey – Chester Municipal Logos Live, Work, Play: Comments ©VOCTADA 2016 3 and I don't support either. Back to the drawing board for a tagline. Why not hold a brainstorming session to come up with a better one. Please do not use either of these! • More thought and work should go into it, though. • Too generic. • Certainly don't like it as much. • Not great but better. Wouldn't it be better with no tagline? • In my opinion, too much money and time spent on this. • It is better than Nova Scotia's Treasure but it makes the logo too busy. • A lot of communities are using that tagline, including Hubbards • Live Work Play -already used for many other towns, google it! • They are both extremely generic and pedestrian. • I think it just has good we got to remind our selves that there are lots of great reason to sppout the Nova Scotia flim tax created . Witch is great for local jobs for young people . • surely we can come up with something a little more original! • I don't think we need a tag line. • This makes sense to me. It's a town that has what it needs to be successful and to thrive without necessarily linking itself to the HRM. I work in HRM, and the happiest part of my day is when I get home. I'm far enough away from work to know that I'm no longer at work. And in terms of play, I do most of mine in Chester. It's a great place to live. That's what should be focused on. • What are we hoping to accomplish with our brand, logo, tagline? Do we want people to go hunting for treasure or do we want people to come to Chester to live, to work, to play? • We wish that, I'm trying to do that, but don't state the obvious with a facile tagline. Nova license plate logo is good; simple, evocative; • Chester is close to Halifax so lots of people commute so I think thus tag line works well if you are trying to sell "Chester" as a place to live. NS treasure makes me think Of Oak Island. • Chester is a tourist destination, let's focus on that. • Chester is unique and a treasure. If we protect its housing stock in The Village, we have an unique both visually and historically. New English Architecture and atmosphere, combined with "Drop Dead"ocean vistas. All the basic resources resources and needs for business and retirement living. Just beautiful ! Problem is people who just want to make a buck or grew up VOCTADA Survey – Chester Municipal Logos Live, Work, Play: Comments ©VOCTADA 2016 4 with the beauty, don't appreciate how unique it is. Chester has not yet turned into Sackville, but it is heading in that direction. How about a promotion and education effort featuring uniqueness and beauty of the place residents live in ? If people knew more about the history and unique beauty and value of that beauty, they would view it with a different perspective, and respect and treat the area as a resource with visual features that are unique and invaluable both spiritually, and visually that most people would be strongly attracted too. Keep the houses neat, street scapes traditional, and in step with vernacular.Too much modernization will kill the magic, Its The Magic that enriches us both commercially and psychologically. Physical beauty creates prosperity, and contentedness.The fishing, forestry, farming, and population of rural Nova Scotia are in decline, Lets use the beauty as our cash cow. CHESTER IS REALLY MAGIC, lets protect it and profit from the treasure ! • WAY better than. Perfect, in fact. • With the province's tough situation and the exodus of the population, its overly optimistic and certainly too simplistic. Chester started as a fishing community, became a haven for the wealthy summer visitors from the States and now is heading into its next re-invention of itself. What is that going to be? That's your tag line. • This has a better sound to me. • That one has been over used • It's OK, but surely we have some brilliant people in Chester who can find a better tagline. • You can live work and play anywhere. What make matters Chester unique in this area? $50 and a case of beer and I'd have something more interesting than this for you in half hour. • It is more appealing to me than the treasure one. It is a call to action. It is 'alive'. "Treasure" is not something you experience. You keep it hidden for the most part. Love the "Live ... Work ... Play" We need more "play" in our lives. • I think it's a mistake to try to make people think things are going on when they're not..... After all, Chester is a community hobbled by the fact that the village does not have town water, which limits its potential. And remember, trite sayings can be damning. Take Springhill for example: "You should see us now," or something like that..... Yeah, bankrupt is what they became. • Too directive- surely they'd be doing just that anyhow unless they're totally dissipated or utterly Calvinist. • Visitors often describe Chester as "a little bit of heaven!" • no better, no slogan • no. who is the market? • This is also a bit cliché but certainly says more than Nova Scotia's treasure. VOCTADA Survey – Chester Municipal Logos Live, Work, Play: Comments ©VOCTADA 2016 5 • It's better than, but still not great • That describes every place .. • Why not just say, "Settled in 1760" ( or whatever date is applicable ) & leave it at that? • Really like the tag line, live...work...play. Encompasses what we do here! "Treasure" tag line is used too frequently VOCTADA Survey – Chester Municipal Logos General Comments ©VOCTADA 2016 1 • Look into the rough up Debbie Houser has come up with and don't waste anymore money on the company who produced the first four logos.I think they should give us our money back! • Very disappointed in the money spent and the results to date.... Glad at least someone is including the people who will have to live with it being asked...... Cant believe that almost didnt happen..... • if use tag something like "the future is ours" • Back to the drawing board . Suggestion : Contact NSCAD • The new logo should have a sail boat on it somewhere • as us we are reactionary rather than proactive • Coouncil: please put the brakes on making a choice in the next few months-- there is no need to rush to judgement. I would like to see the process opened-up so other professionals have a chance to contribute; then the public needs to be widely engaged (one workshop is not sufficient) through the MODC website, Municipal Insights or other avenues. Time to say 'thank you for your time' and goodbye to Sperry (they lack sensitivity, ingenuity and design skills to match the challenge associated with 'branding' MODC. • I'm thinking that maybe Survey Monkey is not your friend. Very cumbersome to use from my point of view. I almost gave up on it before I found out I had to scroll all over the place to answer. • The Logo should be a ship with a sail and the lettering should be on the ship (Chester) on the sail (live..work..play), with a little blue under the ship and a little green behind. • I feel there is little or no imagination put into any of the Sperry stuff and do not represent ALL of the Municipality • Thanks for all the hard work. • Selection of a logo/message is something that, if done badly, is better not done at all. • Keep at it - one will be preferred... • A sailing town with.... a great theatre • Does the cost of this process come out of my pocket? if so I would say scrap it and keep the good logo we have. • Although I love the municipality I grew up in an have seen the crest and used the crest for my school events, childrens sporting events as tokens when hosting or going to tournaments it is dated and a fresh snazzy logo would be awesome but only if the municipality acknowledges all districts and stays away from pleasing a few with time to cry about what they want. GO! Elected VOCTADA Survey – Chester Municipal Logos General Comments ©VOCTADA 2016 2 officials represent your district and squash the sails. I trust in you to do what is right for all the the municipality. • Other things that a logo could reflect is seafood (lobsters), farming, Christmas trees, Theatre • Time to start over again. • Should keep the present logo until something better is offered...quaint is better than confusing or meaningless. • Whatever logo is used it need to be consistent in all marketing formats. Thanks • I've copied and pasted together the various parts of the design. I'll forward it to a few interested persons. • For a tagline how about: "Tax Dollars Well Wasted" "Where Land and Sea Both Beckon" • by the way this survey sucks and seems to be trying to sell ppl on one basic theme . Took 12 tries to fig. out I had to move the logos to the left to make a choice. Most ppl would have given up after 3 tries . • Thank you for allowing us to input! • We don't need a tag line Font for chester should be easy to read • Start over, we need a vision to begin with ,wait till next council is elected and have a more comprehensive plan for our municipality .Elect a Mayor with a vision!! • We need to take the time to get this right. Muni staff and Council seem willing to select a poor logo/tagline for the sole purpose of meeting self-imposed deadlines. • We are more than one thing... definitely a treasure but more importantly a place of opportunity and beauty with friendly neighbours, businesses, churches, history, and activities for all to enjoy. • Much appreciation for working on this very important issue • Put some personality into it. • Keep up the good work,VOCTADA ! • I noticed this is not a municipal website page but wonder if they support this. I thought the process was not a public consultation but a council decision. If it is a coucil decision I trust council at least my elected official to make a good decision and work with the rest if the coucillors to find use a logo that fits with the municipal vision • Thanks VOCTADA VOCTADA Survey – Chester Municipal Logos General Comments ©VOCTADA 2016 3 • I might be biased because I tried to win this job because I'm a graphic designer. I live and work in Chester full time and I was disappointed that Sperry Design won the contract because they are based in Dartmouth. How can a firm in Dartmouth know anything about the Chester municipality? I'm aware that the design at the top of the list (the first one) is the one that they favour but that one is absolutely horrible and I believe there will be backlash if that is chosen. • Thanks for giving everyone the opportunity to weigh in on this and get a true Community input • These uninspired logos and extremely generic tag lines are all unreflective of Historic Chester or the Beautiful surrounding area that make up the Municipality. • I think what ever the sign is it has to have boats for Chester water for race week , somthing to do with the flim tax , and somthing to do with tancook island ferry and oka isiand . • appreciate you requesting feedback • Thank you for taking the trouble to do this! • The problem s Chester faces, ageing demographic, increasing exclusivity, erosion of charm on its edges, lack of a critical mass of businesses and seasonal population, etc are not likely to be addressed by throwing money at a poorly conceived branding program. Increasingly people simply cannot afford to live there. • THE ANSWER IS CONSERVE WHAT IS ALREADY THERE, SPREAD THE WORD, AND PROSPERITY WILL FOLLOW ! • Green triangle, three yellow horizontal flashes from the top of the triangle "tree" ( like a Christmas decoration or a light house light) and a blue wave running from left to right over and under the green triangle. Green triangle = forests 3 yellow streaks = wind Blue Horizontal "wave" through the triangle : the water history. The lovely coloured sails ... What about putting the great yellow sun behind them ( any micma connections in any of these thing?) OR Make all those coloured sails green, like the woods , except for one red one, and add a circle of yellow setting sun behind those.... That would make it more unique. • My email isn't provided because I don't know how it will ultimately be used or circulated. Most people who know me can also contact me. Aloha! • Thanks! • I hope that the people who came up with the new logos will be paid for their effort. Thank you for taking this initiative • I think I've shared enough. Good luck! • Unless the community is determined to modernize and compete, all this promotion is probably a waste of money. • We appreciate having the public input. VOCTADA Survey – Chester Municipal Logos General Comments ©VOCTADA 2016 4 • It is possible to fire the firm hired and get a refund? Possibly hire someone local to submit a logo. • Nice work. Thanks for offering the survey! • We have the privilege of residing in one of the nicest areas of Nova Scotia. It's just a shame that the #3 highway, between Chester and Mahone Bay is such a disgrace. Pretty hard to convince tourists to come here, when we subject them to such a horrid road. On a positive note, thanks for the new Health Centre. • Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this topic. Much appreciated! Suite PB 501, Historic Properties 1869 Upper Water Street Halifax, Nova Scotia B3J 1S9 902 482 2520 info@sperrydesign.ca www.sperrydesign.ca BRANDMARK PRESENTATION FINAL SUBMISSION - V3 PREPARED FOR: MARIANNE GATES AND THE MUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CHESTER MARCH 29TH, 2016 Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 Option 6a Option 6b Option 6c Option 6d Option 6e Option 7a Option 7b Option 7c Option 7d Option 7e MUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CHESTER REQUEST FOR DECISION REPORT TO Warden Webber and Members of the Committee of the Whole SUBMITTED BY Tammy Wilson, MURP, MCIP, Chief Administrative Officer DATE May 3, 2016 SUBJECT VERTICAL EXPANSION ANALYSIS OF LANDFILL – REVISED COST ORIGIN Council - April 14, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ CURRENT SITUATION: At the April 14, 2016 Council meeting, Municipal Council passed a motion to authorize the expenditures of funds to have revised landfill closure costs completed and a Vertical Expansions Analysis for the Kaizer Meadows Landfill. The estimated costs provided to Council were $15,000 for revised Closure Costs and $5,000 for a Vertical Expansion Analysis. MODC two pre-qualified Engineering Services firms for Solid Waste, Dillion and CBCL, were asked to provide quotes for the completion of the work. The deadline for submissions were Friday, April 29, 2016. Dillion has been selected as the consultant to complete the work. The costs for the landfill closure costs revisions are within the estimated amount, being $13,034.96. The costs for the Vertical Expansion Analysis is $24,343.94. Staff respectfully request confirmation from Council that they wish to proceed with the Vertical Expansion Analysis RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve the additional funds to complete the Vertical Expansion Analysis with an estimated total costs of $22,389. BACKGROUND : Landfill closure costs influence the costs required reserve funding for landfill closure. Presently MODC budgets for $550,000 to be placed in the landfill closure reserve on an annual basis. This is funded though the operations at Kaizer Meadows. As per the permit to operate the landfill, MODC is required to have these costs reviewed. The last review was in 2014, and it is anticipated the estimate is higher than necessary. MODC is presently exploring a partnership with Sustane Technologies which will see up to 90% of waste diverted from landfill. The objective is to lower costs and lessen cell construction requirements. MODC is nearing capacity of its present cell, and to delay cell construction, an analysis of the possibility of vertical expansion within the existing footprint was recommended. The Vertical Expansion Analysis will enable greater capacity within the existing foot print. DISCUSSION: On April 14th, staff recommended a phased approach with regards to reviewing landfill closure costs and remaining landfill capacity, as well as completing technical analysis of vertical expansion for regulatory approval. Council approved the expenditure of $15,000 for the review of closure costs and $5,000 for phase 1 of the vertical expansion analysis (volume calculation). Phase 2 (Technical Review and NSDOE Approval) would be completed at a later date with costs to be determined. After further discussions and advice from the prequalified consultants, staff issued an RFP for the KMEMC Landfill Closure Costs Review & Vertical Expansion Feasibility Analysis, with the following phases: • Phase 1 - Review of Closure Costs and Volume Calculation • Phase 2 - Technical feasibility of Vertical Expansion • Phase 3 - Regulatory Approval of Vertical Expansion The revised approach provided the necessary information for contract negotiations, all the while minimizing the capital investment required throughout the process, as well as providing an efficient and logical progression of the project. Phase 1 of issued RFP achieves the review of closure costs and volume calculation within the original budget ($15,000). However, the scope of work for the Technical review of Vertical Expansion has been expanded, thus so must the budget. It should be noted as part of Phase 1, the consultant is required to review the estimate budget for Phase 2 and refine costs. Regardless of contact negotiations, staff understand the need to verify the technical ability to vertical expand integral to the landfills sustainability. Phase 3 of the work, while quoted, will not be proceeding at this time. Staff will provide further updates as the project progresses. IMPLICATIONS: 1 Policy: n/a 2 Financial/Budgetary: The costs for these assessments, totaling $34,377 pre HST will be taken from reserve 3 Environmental: All regulatory environmental approvals will be complied with. This Phase of the Vertical Expansion Analysis does not include permitting. This will be required if MODC opts to proceed with a Vertical Expansion 4 Strategic Plan: 5 Work Program Implications: Within the existing work program 6 Consultation/Communications: (External v Internal) External Communications MODC has the Kaizer Meadows Environmental Management Committee. Vertical Expansion is a significant change to the landfill operation and as such consultation with the committee should be considered. This will be required as part of the permitting process with the Department of Environment, which is a future Phase. Internal Communications Staff will be advised of the reviews being completed ATTACHMENTS: None OPTIONS: 1. Continue with the Vertical Expansion Analysis as required to determine additional capacity 2. Not proceed with the Vertical Expansion Analysis, and thus limit capacity to the existing cell foot print and cell design. Prepared BY Tammy Wilson, CAO; Matthew Davidson; P. Eng Date May 3, 2016 Reviewed BY Date Authorized BY Tammy Wilson Date May 3, 2016 MUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CHESTER REQUEST FOR DECISION REPORT TO Warden Webber and Municipal Council Members SUBMITTED BY Matthew Davidson, P.Eng. Director of Engineering and Public Works DATE May 12, 2016 SUBJECT Results of tender and award recommendation ORIGIN T-2016-001 – Consultant Engineering Services – Public Works ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ CURRENT SITUATION: At the February 25th, 2016 Council meeting, Council approved (Motion 2016-048) the direction being taken in Engineering Services Expression of Interest as it pertains to the Pre-Qualification of up to three (3) proponents, the evaluation criteria to be used and the exclusions to the contract as presented in Staffs report. RECOMMENDATION: As per the evaluation process detailed in T-2016-001, Expression of Interest for Consulting Services- Public Works, Section 6.3, staff recommends that Council approve the pre-qualification of the three (3) highest evaluated consultants: CBCL Ltd, Stantec and Hiltz & Seamone (highlighted below). The three pre-qualified firms will provide engineering services to the Municipality for a three (3) year period for ongoing operational and capital improvements as required for the Municipality. Table 1. Reviewer Rankings Total AVG. FINAL RANK FIRM 1 2 3 CBCL 81.5 86.0 91.0 258.5 86.2 1 Stantec 78.0 89.0 87.0 254.0 84.7 2 Hatch 71.5 79.0 73.0 223.5 74.5 4 Hiltz & Seamone 76.5 79.0 79.0 234.5 78.2 3 BACKGROUND: Inherent to Council’s February 25th, 2016 direction, based upon recent changes to the Procurement Policy (P-04), staff were directed seek proposals to pre-qualify up to three (3) engineering consulting firms under two (2) separate Requests for Expressions of Interests, specifically for Solid Waste and Public Works. DISCUSSION: Staff were directed to pre-qualify up to three (3) engineering firms for a three (3) year period to provide professional services in support of the Municipality’s ongoing operational and capital improvement programs for the Municipality of the District of Chester (MODC). The specific scope of services to be provided shall be determined on a project to project basis. The REI for Consulting Engineering Services – Public Works was advertised the week of February 15, 2016. A voluntary information meeting was held for Proponents on Friday, February 26, 2016. The other key dates outlined in the REI were altered during the course of the process. Addendum No.1 was issued following multiple requests for an extension and the closing date was changed to Friday March 18, 2016. This in-turn altered the schedule for staffs review, interviews and the final recommendation to Council. • Closing date for submissions: March 4, 2016 (changed to March 18, 2016) • Short List by review panel: March 11, 2016 (changed to April 18, 2016) • Interviews & Presentations to Review Panel: March 25, 2016 (scheduled April 27, 2016) • Final Approval of Pre-Qualified Firms to Council: April 7, 2016 (May 12, 2016) On March 18, 2016, nine (9) proposals were received from the following consulting firms: • ABLE Engineering; • Allnorth; • CBCL Ltd.; • Eastpoint; • Hatch; • Highland Geomatics and Engineering; • Hiltz and Seamone • SNC Lavalin; and • Stantec. A full review of the nine (9) proposals was completed and were shortlisted by the team. ABLE Engineering formally withdrew their expression of interest Tender T-2016-001 Consulting Engineering Services – Public Works by email on April 14, 2016. The team selected four (4) firms to be interviewed and scored as per the evaluation criteria pre- established in the REI. REI Interviews took place at the MODC office committee room on Wednesday, April 27th, 2016. Evaluation Criteria outlined in Section 6.3.3 of the REI and proposal were ranked according to the following: Corporate (20%), Technical Ability (60%), Communication/Reporting (15%) and the Quality of Proposal (5%). The scoring was averaged as shown in Table 1 (shown above) and the top three (3) consulting firms have been recommended for approval. IMPLICATIONS: 1 Policy: Tender T-2016-003 followed Policy P-04 Procurement Policy. 2 Financial/Budgetary: Not applicable 3 Environmental: Not applicable 4 Strategic Plan: 1.Continually improve public satisfaction with municipal services; 2.Ensure sufficient infrastructure is available to best serve our residents and businesses 5 Work Program Implications: Not applicable ATTACHMENTS: Not applicable OPTIONS: 1. Award work, as recommended. 2. Not award work. 3. Defer any decision on the matter and direct staff to bring back further information as identified by Council. Prepared BY Christa Rafuse, P.Eng Date May 4, 2016 Reviewed BY Matthew S. Davidson, P.Eng Date May 4, 2016 Authorized BY Tammy Wilson, CAO Date May 4, 2016 1/2 March 9th, 2016 To:Municipality of the District of Chester Municipality of the District of Lunenburg Town of Bridgewater Town of Lunenburg Town of Mahone Bay Subject:Funding Request for Seniors Safety Program Dear Council Members; As follow-up to the presentation South Shore Safe Communities (SSSC)made to your respective councils two years ago,we are pleased to report that the Lunenburg County Seniors Safety Advisory Partnership has been active and The Seniors Safety Program is experiencing tremendous growth in Lunenburg County.As a reminder the partnership consists of municipal councilors, Jean-Guy Richard RCMP detachment commander, Chief John Collyer from Bridgewater Police Service, and me,as Chair of SSSC.Together the partners will help guide the future direction and activities of the Seniors Safety Program. In order to meet the terms of the program’s primary funder, the Department of Seniors, we are seeking a financial contribution from each municipal unit so we can continue to operate the program on a full-time basis.To achieve this, we are seeking a commitment of funds from your municipality. The cost of providing a full-time Seniors Safety Program to cover all of Lunenburg County is $55,160 per year.Thus far we have secured the maximum grant from the Department of Seniors ($20,000),a contribution of $1,773.55 from the Lunenburg County Community Health Board,and have applied to the United Way for $8,000 (pending).The remainder we hope to make up with funding from the municipal units. The dollar amounts requested from the municipal units are as follows: 122 Lakeview Haven Dr. Hebbville, B4V7A9 Phone: 902 543 1871 e-mail: paulfynes@eastlink.ca 2/2 MoDL -$14,195.34 MoDC -$5,967.33 Town of Mahone Bay -$533 Town of Lunenburg -$1,232 Town of Bridgewater -$4,690.21 The dollar value apportioned to the respective municipal units is based on a per-capita formula using 2011 statistics. As you know, the number of seniors is increasing every month, and the need for the program services is also dramatically increasing. Without your support, the Seniors Safety Program, as we know it today, would not be sustainable. We appreciate your consideration of our request. Sincerely, Paul Fynes, Chair South Shore Safe Communities On behalf of the Lunenburg County Seniors Safety Partnership Outline of the Project and Benefits The Seniors Safety Program is a prevention and early intervention program designed to address senior's safety issues, reduce incidences of elder abuse, and promote better communication between seniors and police.Services are offered to seniors in their homes and in the community by one full-time Seniors Safety Coordinator.In most instances, the coordinator visits with seniors in their homes,and helps them resolve difficult issues,all with the goal of trying to keep seniors in their own homes and making their own decisions for as long as possible. To ensure that all seniors can participate in our services, programs are typically offered at low or no cost.With the advice of seniors and our partners, we identify gaps in services and endeavor to fill those gaps with effective programs or awareness campaigns. The total population of Lunenburg County was 47,234 in 2011, with 19.4% of the population aged 65+. The combined senior population in the Municipality of the District of Lunenburg (4,882), Town of Bridgewater (1,980), Town of Lunenburg (718),Municipality of the District of Chester (2,306), and Mahone Bay (300) was 10,186 in 2011.Of the total senior population, approximately 10 –12% (at least 1,000 seniors)will experience some type of elder abuse. (Physical, emotional, financial, etc.) An additional 14.9% will suffer from dementia (1,522 seniors). The Department of Seniors instituted the Seniors Safety Program in 2008 as a means to support their elder abuse strategy and to support the growing number of seniors in the province. The peak population growth will occur in 2025, which means we will need more services to support seniors than we have at present. The growth of the program over the past three years has been significant. In 2013, 131 home visits were made to seniors, and in 2014 the coordinators made 189 home visits, an increase of 44% over the previous year.In 2015, a total of 360 home visits were made, an astounding 90% increase from 2014. Additionally, the program reached over 600 seniors through group programs and presentations in 2015. We anticipate that demand for the program will continue to grow in 2016. Funding from the municipality will be used to operate the Lunenburg County Seniors Safety Program on a full-time basis *Please see attached Annual Report for 2015. Se n i o r s S a f e t y P r o g r a m Pr e s e n t a t i o n t o M o D C Co u n c i l Ma r c h 2 0 1 6 Se n i o r S a f e t y P r o g r a m s No v a S c o t i a D e m o g r a p h i c s * NS & N B a r e C a n a d a ’ s o l d e s t p r o v i n c e s (2 0 1 4 ) 18 . 3 % Lu n e n b u r g C o u n t y (2 0 1 1 ) 21 . 6 % 47 , 3 1 0 t o t a l p o p u l a t i o n ; 1 0 , 2 1 9 s e n i o r s ( 6 5 + ) Al b e r t a ( 2 0 1 4 ) 11 . 4 % St a t i s t i c s C a n a d a a n d N o v a S c o t i a F i n a n c e “ C o m m u n i t y C o u n t s ” Se n i o r s P o p u l a t i o n G r o w t h 20 0 6 2 0 1 1 2 0 3 1 85 8 5 10 2 1 9 16 2 3 4 Lu n e n b u r g C o u n t y So u r c e : N o v a S c o t i a D e p a r t m e n t o f S e n i o r s : S t a t i s t ic a l p r o f i l e 2 0 0 9 Se n i o r s S a f e t y P r o g r a m • Co m m u n i t y - b a s e d pr o g r a m s c u s t o m i z e d fo r t h e n e e d s o f t h e i r ar e a • Cl o s e l y a f f i l i a t e d w i t h RC M P o r m u n i c i p a l po l i c e ( h o u s e d & su p e r v i s e d ) • Em p l o y s c o o r d i n a t o r – fr o n t l i n e , c i v i l i a n • Di r e c t , i n - h o m e s e r v i c e • Gr o u p p r e s e n t a t i o n s an d p r o g r a m s • Wo r k s c o l l a b o r a t i v e l y wi t h l o c a l p a r t n e r s • Re c e i v e s r e f e r r a l s f r o m an y o n e / a n y w h e r e • Ha s n o l e g i s l a t i v e au t h o r i t y ( v o l u n t a r y & se r v i c e f o c u s e d ) Pr o g r a m G o a l s • Ad d r e s s t h e s a f e t y c o n c e r n s o f s e n i o r s th r o u g h : – Ed u c a t i o n a n d a w a r e n e s s a b o u t c r i m e p r e v e n t i o n , se n i o r a b u s e , p e r s o n a l s a f e t y , a n d h e a l t h i s s u e s – Co l l a b o r a t i o n w i t h c o m m u n i t y p a r t n e r s – Di r e c t i n t e r v e n t i o n o n b e h a l f o f s e n i o r s • En h a n c e c o m m u n i c a t i o n b e t w e e n s e n i o r s a n d po l i c e Wh a t d o w e d o ? Pr o g r a m s & A c t i v i t i e s : – Se n i o r s S a f e t y A c a d e m y / L i v i n g A l o n e – Pr e s e n t a t i o n s – Sa f e D r i v i n g P r o g r a m & D r i v i n g C e s s a t i o n – Ag e - f r i e n d l y / S e n i o r F r i e n d l y ™ – In t e r g e n e r a t i o n a l P r o g r a m s – Vi a l o f L i f e – Ho m e v i s i t s w i t h s e n i o r s Ho m e V i s i t s • Fo l l o w -u p o n r e f e r r a l s f r o m v a r i e t y o f s o u r c e s • Of f e r s u p p o r t a n d a d v o c a c y f o r s e n i o r s t o ad d r e s s t h e i r c o n c e r n s a n d s a f e t y i s s u e s . • Pr o v i d e i n f o r m a t i o n a n d r e f e r r a l s • He l p s e n i o r s f e e l s a f e r a t h o m e , r e s p e c t e d , va l u e d Wh a t w e b e l i e v e 1. S e n i o r s h a v e t h e r i g h t t o m a k e o w n d e c i s i o n s – De c i d e w h e r e a n d h o w t h e y w i l l l i v e – Ch o o s e t o a c c e p t o r r e j e c t s e r v i c e s o r a s s i s t a n c e – Fr e e d o m o f c h o i c e t o m a k e “ b a d ” d e c i s i o n s 2. T h e i n t e r e s t s o f t h e s e n i o r t a k e p r e c e d e n c e o v e r th o s e o f t h e s e n i o r ’ s f a m i l y o r o f o t h e r f a m i l y me m b e r s 3. I n t e r v e n t i o n s s h o u l d f o c u s o n t h e s e n i o r , a n d o n l y wi t h t h e i r p e r m i s s i o n Th e f t 2% Ne g l e c t 2%Tr a n s . 2% Di s a s t e r R e l i e f 2% Ho u s i n g 3% Do m e s t i c V i o l e n c e 6% Fr a u d 6% Se l f - c a r e 7% We l l n e s s C h e c k s 7% Dr i v i n g an d D e m e n t i a 14 % De m e n t i a 9% Fi n a n c i a l A b u s e 17 % Me n t a l H e a l t h 23 % RE F E R R A L C O N C E R N RC M P 21 % BPS 20% FA M I L Y 16 % SE L F 7 % CO M M U N I T Y 36 % RE F E R R A L S O U R C E 2 0 1 5 Qu e s t i o n s o r c o m m e n t s ? Al i c i a V a n d e S a n d e 90 2 -5 4 3 -3 5 6 7 Lunenburg County Seniors Safety Program 2015 Summary Report Blockhouse Bridgewater Camperdown Chester Chelsea Clearland Colpton Conquerall Bank Cornwall Crescent Beach Crouses Settlmt. Dayspring Dean’s Corner Forties Italy Cross Lahave Lapland Lunenburg Mader’s Cove Mahone Bay Martin’s Brook Martin’s River Middlewood Newcombville New Cumberland New Ross Oakhill Oak Island Petite Riviere Pleasantville Riverport Rose Bay Seffernville Simpson’s Corner West Dublin Western Shore Wileville Communities served in 2015 “I am at a loss for words to express the full extent of my gratitude for Alicia, Seniors Safety Coordinator, and the Bridgewater Police Service. My Mom struggles with numerous physical health issues, and my step- father has Alzheimer’s Disease. They are still living alone in their home. A situation arose in the home which was of a potentially very dangerous, yet delicate nature. When Alicia was made aware of this con- cern, she immediately began coordinating a resolution. The issue was handled quickly, and with the utmost respect and compassion from all involved. Alicia continues to be in touch with my Mom, and Mom has developed a deep trust in her. This all means less anxiety and more peace of mind to me. It means there are others watching out for them and offering assistance when needed. Thank you.” The Program in Brief Lunenburg County Seniors Safety Program is a project of South Shore Safe Communities (SSSC), housed at Bridgewater Police Service (BPS), and governed by an advisory committee made up of BPS, RCMP, SSSC, and four of five municipalities in Lunenburg County. In Octo- ber of 2015 Beth George, one of two half-time coordinators left the program, and the remaining coordinator, Alicia Van de Sande, now staffs the program full – time. The program is funded in part by the municipalities, and receives grants from the United Way of Lunenburg County, the Lunenburg Community Health Board, and the Department of Seniors. The Need The senior population in Lunenburg County continues to grow. By 2031, it’s anticipated over 35% of our citizens will be 65 or older. As our population ages, we anticipate increased rates for dementia (14.9%), disa- bility (64% age 75+), and elder abuse (12%). In 2015, over 600 seniors were reached through group programs and presentations made to seniors organizations, residences, fairs, pic- nics, and other events. Group pro- grams offered in 2015 include:  Seniors Police Academy  Living Alone  Seniors Safe Driving Services One of the most important services offered through the program are home visits made to speak to seniors about their concerns and safe- ty issues.  In 2015, we made 360 home visits, an increase of 90% from 2014.  Since 2010, the program has seen a 407% increase in home visit referrals.  In 2015, 62% of the seniors served through the program live outside Bridge- water. 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 71 101 110 131 189 360 Home Visits 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 653 398 459 563 576 600 Seniors reached in Group Programs Partnerships & Referrals The Lunenburg County Seniors Safety Program enhances services by working collaboratively with community partners. We encourage caregivers, volunteers, and the public to become part of the solution and help our limited resources go further. Currently we offer programs and services to all parts of the county by partnering with RCMP, VON, Aspotogan Heritage Trust, Chester Recreation, and other partners. Our primary referring agent is police. We follow up on many police files that might otherwise require expensive police resources. We also work closely with the Seniors Community Health Team, South Shore Health, Alzheimer ’s Society, NS Housing, Continuing Care, and seniors themselves. Funding Report Since its inception in 2009, the program has been funded by the Department of Seniors ’ Seniors Safety Program grant funding at $20,000 per year. The program is currently funded in part by the various municipalities in Lunen- burg County, and receives grants from the United Way of Lunenburg County, the Lunenburg Community Health Board, and the Department of Seniors. REVENUE Dept. of Seniors 20,000 United Way 10,000 Community Health Board 3,000 MOD Lunenburg 10,622 MOD Chester 4,330 Mahone Bay 387 Town of Bridgewater 3,191 TOTAL 51,530 EXPENSES Salaries 42,000 Facility Rental 400 Professional Development 800 Vehicle Maintenance 2,000 Cell Phones 2,000 Travel 300 Hospitality 1,100 Materials 450 Insurance 1,700 Clothing Allowance 500 Honorariums 100 TOTAL 51,530 In 2015 we received 106 new referrals. The most common concerns referred to the program for action were related to mental health (23%), dementia (23%), and financial abuse (17%). Our most common referring agent is police—both BPS and RCMP (41%)- followed by community (36%), fol- lowed by referrals from fami- ly members (16%) and self- referrals (7%). Theft 2% Neglect 2%Trans. 2% Disaster Relief 2% Housing 3%Domestic Violence 6% Fraud 6% Self-care 7% Wellness Checks 7% Driving and Dementia 14% Dementia 9% Financial Abuse 17% Mental Health 23% Referral Concern MUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CHESTER GRANT APPLICATION FORM Council or Tourism Grant Request Name of OrganizationApplying South Shore Safe Communities Contact Person Paul FynesPosition with Organization ChairMailingAddress122 Lakeview Haven Dr. Hebbville. Ns B4V 7A9Incorporation Number with Registry of Joint Stocks(if applicable)3078665 Phone:902-543-1871 Fax:Email:paulfynes@eastlink.ca Date:February 22ndType of Grant (see pg 3)Council Grant ____ OR Tourism Grant ___√__ Signature of Signing Officer(s) and their position with Organization:Name Signature Position_Paul Fynes_________________________________________________________________Chairperson____________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ORGANIZATION AND/OR EVENT INFORMATION:1.Purpose or objective(s) of your organization (i.e. mission statement):To make the South Shore the safest place in Canada to live, work, and play.2.For Council Grants -Please provide an outline of the project and its benefits to residents .For Tourism Grants -Please provide an outline of how the project will improve visitor attraction andbenefit the local economy in the Municipality (attach separately if insufficient space).Please see attached report.3.How much money are you requesting?$$5,967.33 4.Budget Please attach a project budget showing all revenue and expenses. You must demonstrate fundraising efforts and include a list of financial contributions from allsources. If your project exceeds $5,000, please include a copy of your most recent yearly financialstatement. If your organization has a reserve account or large amount of savings for a designatedproject, please note the purpose or intended use of those funds. 5.How do you plan to spend any Council / Tourism Grant funding received?The funds will be used to operate the Lunenburg County Seniors Safety Program on a full -time basis. 7.Is your grant request time sensitive (for example, an event on a specific date)?No.8.Is there additional information that may support your grant application? Please attach letters ofsupport, etc.Please see attached.9.Did your organization receive funds last year from the Municipality of the District of Chester?Yes √No _____If yes, was it a Council Grant ____√_ Recreation Grant _____ Tourism Grant _____How much was the grant? $ 4, 330(Please attach a copy of completed report form if not previously submitted) APPLICATION CHECKLIST -DID YOU INCLUDE WITH YOUR APPLICATION:____ A written outline of the project and its benefits to residents____ Project budget including Revenues and Expenses____ Financial Statement (for projects exceeding $5,000)____ Incorporation Number (if applicable)____ List of Directors____Application signed by signing officer(s)____ Copy of report regarding previous year’s grant (if a grant was received last year) If you require assistance, please contact the Municipal Office at:Phone (902) 275-3490 Fax (902) 275-3630 Email chaughn@chester.ca REPORT TO COUNCIL -HOW WAS YOUR EVENT AND HOW WERE THE FUNDS SPENT? Following your event or upon the completion of your project it is requested that you provide a very briefreport regarding the project and how the Grant money was spent. If a follow-up report is not receivedfuture requests may be affected.Please forward applications and reports to the following:Director of Recreation & Parks“Grants”Municipality of the District of ChesterPO Box 369Chester, NS B0J 1J0 OFFICE USE ONLY Essential Services Regional Services Local Non-Profit Community Halls National/Provincial,Cultural/Health Services Report Received ADVISORY COMMITTEE The Lunenburg County Seniors Safety Program operates under the direction of an Advisory Committee comprised of councilors from four of the five municipal units, as well as South Shore Safe Communities Chair’, RCMP, and Bridgewater Police Service. The following individuals are currently active members of the Luneburg County Seniors Safety Advisory Committee: Bridgewater Police Service –Chief John Collyer Municipality of the District of Lunenburg –Councilor Frank Fawson Municipality of the District of Chester –Councilor Tina Connors RCMP –St. Sgt. Jean-Guy Richard and Community Policing Officer Cst. Angela MacEachern Town of Bridgewater –Councilor Jennifer MacDonald Town of Mahone Bay –Councilor Penny Carver South Shore Safe Communities –Chair of SSSC Paul Fynes BUDGET ACTUAL VARIANCE  Pos(Neg) REVENUE Province of NS Seniors 20,000 20,250 250 Municipal Contributions 19,350 19,986 636 Other Revenue 13,000 13,000 0 Interest 0 120 120 52,350 53,236 886 EXPENSES Salaries (to Mar 31, 2015)40,000 30,772 9,228 Facility Rentals 400 0 400 Professional Development 800 175 625 Vehicle Maintenance (gas posted to Feb 28, 2015)2,000 1,969 31 Office Equipment 2,500 236 2,264 Travel 3,200 0 3,200 Cell Phones 0 491 ‐491 Hospitality 1,100 99 1,001 Materials 450 89 361 Insurance 1,300 1,678 ‐378 Clothing Allowance 500 115 385 Honorariams 100 0 100 52,350 35,623 16,727 NET 0 17,613 17,613 Lunenburg Senior Safety Advisory Partnership/South Shore Safe Communities as at March 31, 2015 Lunenburg County Senior Safety Advisory Partnership/South Shore Safe Communities Budget 2016/2017 Revenue Budget Province of NS Seniors (confirmed) 20,000 Community Health Board (confirmed) 1, 774 United Way (pending) 8, 000 Municipal Contributions (pending) 25,386 MoDL 14,196 MoDC 5,967 Town of Mahone Bay (confirmed) 533 Town of Bridgewater (cash and in-kind) 4,690 55,160 Expenses Salaries + Benefits 47,110 Facility rentals 400 Professional Development 800 Vehicle Maintenance 2,500 Travel 200 Cell Phones 700 Hospitality 1,100 Materials 450 Insurance 1,800 Honorariums 100 55,160 Improving lives locally. www.lunenburgcounty.unitedway.ca For our 2016/2017 - Allocation period The United Way of Lunenburg County invested $175,462 in 27 programs Funded programs will assist residents of LUNENBURG COUNTY Includes the Towns of Bridgewater, Lunenburg, Mahone Bay, The Municipalities of Chester and Lunenburg 211 Information and Referral Adult Learning Network Tutor Development Activity Sampler for Culturally Diverse Women Back in the Game Free Skates to Borrow at the LCLC Back in the Game Free Skating Passes for Financially Stressed Families Big Brother Big Sisters in School Mentoring Bikes for kids – 225 bikes distributed to date Freeman House Community Kitchen Girl Talk Summer Day Camps Harbour House Community Outreach Helping Hands Community Engagement Project Hinchinbrook Farm Volunteer and First Aid Training Hinchinbrook Farm Therapeutic Riding for Mentally Challenged Adults living with their Parents Kids and Kops Summer Day Camp Lunenburg and District Music Festival “Plow it Forward” Community Engagement Campaign St. Vincent de Paul Community Outreach Sexual Health Centre South Shore Safe Communities Senior Safety Coordinator YMCA Friday Night Youth Zone YMCA King Street Youth Centre MUNICIPALITY OF CHESTER Chester Community Wheels Fox Point Community Centre P.R.O. Kids (Positive Recreation Opportunities for Kids) VON Breakaway Adult Day Program Pilot in New Ross MUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF LUNENBURG P.R.O. Kids (Positive Recreation Opportunities for Kids) Senior Wheels South Shore Family Resource Centre Buccaneer Bay/ Heritage Ho use 4H TOWN OF BRIDGEWATER Bridgewater Outdoor Pool P.R.O. Kids (Positive Recreation Opportunities for Kids) Senior Wheels South Shore Family Resource Centre 4H - BES School TOWN OF MAHONE BAY Mahone Bay Swimming Pool Free Family Swims Improving lives locally. www.lunenburgcounty.unitedway.ca Programs that benefit residents of Region of Queens Municipality 211 Information and Referral Big Brother Big Sisters in School Mentoring Girl Talk Summer Day Camps Harbour House Community Outreach Helping Hands Community Engagement Project (Caledonia) Hinchinbrook Farm Therapeutic Riding for Mentally Challenged Adults living with their Parents Hinchinbrook Farm Volunteer Training Kids and Kops Summer Day Camp “Plow it Forward” Community Engagement Campaign Sexual Health Centre YMCA Friday Night Youth Zone The United Way of Lunenburg County Community Asset Purchases PREVIOUSLY PURCHASED COMMUNITY ASSETS THAT ARE STILL PROVIDING BENEFITS TO OUR COMMUNITY Harbour House Community Outreach Material Buster the Bus School Bus Safety Program Dance Dance Revolution High Sc hool Recreation Program Bonny Lea Farm Industrial Shredders (2) ARK Crew Cab Truck Purchase New Hope Playing Surface in Western Shore Chester Community Wheels Bus North River Recreational Concrete Pad Riverport and District Community Room Furnishings Commercial Toasters for Lunenburg County High Schools New Ross School Community Recreational Facility South Shore Scouts Start Up Kits Fox Point Community Centre Upgrade Chronic Disease Management Program at South Shore Regional Hospital Lunenburg County Sexual Health Centre Education Support Program (SHIFT) Chester Heritage Society Community Labyrinth Active Energized & Empowered for 55 + Recreational Equipment Bonnie Lea Farm Ground Maintenance Training Riding Mower Pinegrove Outdoor Play Association Community Park Through the Years Community Centre and Day Care Specialized Recreational Equipment Voglers Cove Community Centre Equipment Purchase Voglers Cove Community Centre Library Lunenburg County Lifestyle Centre – Aquatics for All Adaptive Devices Freeman House Community Kitchen Improving lives locally. For 2016/2017 The United Way of Lunenburg County invested $175,462 in 27 programs Not all community members have an equal opportunity to create a vibrant life. Many struggle to achieve a sustainable livelihood because they have vulnerabilities that place then at risk and face barriers at accessing opportunities and support. Recognizing this, the United Way chooses to focus our efforts on individual and groups in our community that are vulnerable to a variety of social and systemic barriers. Priority pop ulations in a community vary according to local circumstances, but often include people dealing with or at risk of poverty, abuse or stigmatation related to race, country of origin, culture, disability, age or sexual orientation. The United Way of Lunenburg County directs funding to the following focus areas are All That Kids Can Be, Poverty to Possibility and Strong Communities. ALL THAT KIDS CAN BE programs received funding totaling $87,032 Helping children and youth reach their potential by investing i n their early years, middle years and youth. Giving a positive summer camp experience - $13,000 Girl Talk Kids and Kops Helping kids participate in sport, recreational or cultural activities – $24,480 PRO Kids Bridgewater PRO Kids Municipality of Chester PRO Kids Municipality of Lunenburg Lunenburg Music Festival Bikes for kids Back in the Game free LCLC skating passes for financially stressed families Providing a safe place for youth to grow and socialize - $33,500 South Shore Family Resource 4H Clubs (3) YMCA Friday Night Youth Zone YMCA King Street Youth Centre Helping our communities’ most vulnerable youth and young adults - $8,000 Big Brother Big Sisters in School Mentoring Helping to put factual information into the community - $1,632 Sexual Health Centre Outreach Presentations Helping children and youth with special needs - $6,420 Hinchinbrook Farm FROM POVERTY TO POSSIBILITY programs received funding totaling $23,000 Meeting basic human needs and moving people out of poverty by investing (in part) in employment security and basic income maintenance programs. Literacy programs - $3,000 Lunenburg County Adult Learning Network Basic income maintenance programs - $20,000 Saint Vincent de Paul Society Improving lives locally. HEALTHY PEOPLE STRONG COMMUNITIES programs received funding totaling $65,430 Supporting personal wellbeing and strengthening neighbourhoods by investing (in part) in seniors, transportation information and support and adults with special needs. Helping to create inclusive community spaces - $9,000 Bridgewater Outdoor Pool Mahone Bay Outdoor Pool Free to borrow skates at the LCLC Bridgewater Tool Library Connecting people and communities through transportation networks - $10,000 Bridgewater Senior Wheels Chester Community Wheels Helping to keep our seniors safe and in their homes - $14,422 Lunenburg County Senior Safety Coordinator Plow it Forward – Rake it Forward – Mow it Forward - Stack it Forward Campaign South Shore Helping Hands VON New Ross Adult Day Program Pilot Helping to build a community space - $13,220 Freeman House Community Kitchen Helping support groups by providing hope, strength, emotional support, information and resources - $12,672 Harbour House Community Outreach 211 Information and Referral Helping to support rural communities - $4,616 Fox Point Community Centre Helping to be a more inclusive community - $1,500 Activity Sampler for culturally diverse women Making positive things happen in Lunenburg County takes more than good intentions and the contributions of a few. It takes everyone doing what they can because everyone shares in the benefits of a happy, healthy, and safe community where no one is left behind. Consider this. If every single working person in Lunenburg County invested just $0.15 per day with the United Way of Lunenburg County, we would raise over $1.1 million dollars each and every year to invest in programs and organizations that would make a meaningful and measurable difference in the lives of Lunenbu rg County residents. To find out more about how the United Way of Lunenburg County is putting your donations to work helping Lunenburg County youth, families, seniors and communities, to see our community impact videos, to see the requirements necessary to obtain a grant, to sign up for our e-newsletter and/or to make a secure online donation please visit our website at www.lunenburgcounty.unitedway.ca. Please direct questions to office@lunenburgcounty.unitedway.ca. Wh a t w e d o . We r a i s e m o n e y i n t h e l o c a l c o m m u n i t y a n d t h e n r e i n vest th a t m o n e y b a c k i n t o n u m e r o u s c o m m u n i t y g r o u p s a n d pr o g r a m s . Fo r m a n y c o m m u n i t y g r o u p s U n i t e d W a y m o n e y i s t h e di f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n a g o o d p r o g r a m a n d a g r e a t p r o g r am an d i n s o m e c a s e s n o p r o g r a m a t a l l . Si n c e 2 0 1 3 w e h a v e i n v e s t e d o v e r $ 1 . 5 m i l l i o n . Co m m u n i t y Q u i c k F a c t s Po v e r t y R a t e Fo r a p e r s o n l i v i n g a l o n e , t h e a f t e r - t a x l o w i n c o m e t h r e s h o l d i n 2 0 1 0 w a s $ 1 9 , 4 6 0 ; f o r a f a m i l y o f f o u r it was $38,920. • Ov e r a l l P o v e r t y R a t e 1 6 . 5 % • Ch i l d P o v e r t y R a t e 1 9 . 9 % • Se n i o r P o v e r t y R a t e 7 . 5 % Lo n e P a r e n t F a m i l i e s Th e r e a r e 1 , 7 2 5 l o n e p a r e n t f a m i l i e s l i v i n g i n L u n e nb u r g C o u n t y ( 2 0 0 6 ) . • 1, 3 6 5 f e m a l e a n d 3 6 0 m a l e h o u s e h o l d s . Co m m u n i t y Q u i c k F a c t s Un e m p l o y m e n t R a t e • Th e u n e m p l o y m e n t r a t e i n S o u t h e r n N o v a S c o t i a i s 1 1 .5 % . ( J a n u a r y 2 0 1 5 ) Fo o d B a n k U s a g e • In 2 0 1 4 F o o d B a n k u s a g e i n B r i d g e w a t e r a n d a r e a w a s 5 5 2 u s e r s / m o n t h . Th i s n u m b e r i n c l u d e s 2 0 6 c h i l d r e n / m o n t h . St V i n c e n t d e P a u l • In 2 0 1 5 t h e y h e l p e d 8 9 5 i n d i v i d u a l s o f w h i c h 3 6 2 w e re c h i l d r e n . Co m m u n i t y Q u i c k F a c t s Di s a b i l i t y R a t e • Ap p r o x . 2 0 % o f N o v a S c o t i a n s h a v e s o m e s e l f - i d e n t i f ie d d i s a b i l i t y . • St a t i s t i c s C a n a d a r e p o r t s t h a t p e o p l e w h o s e d i s a b i l it y l i m i t s t h e i r a b i l i t y t o wo r k a n d a r e a m o n g t h e m o s t p e r s i s t e n t i n l o w - i n c o m e g r o u p s . Co m m u n i t y T r a n s p o r t a t i o n (B r i d g e w a t e r S e n i o r W h e e l s a n d Ch e s t e r C o m m u n i t y W h e e l s ) • Th e s e 2 t r a n s p o r t a t i o n s e r v i c e s p r o v i d e o v e r 1 2 , 0 0 0 o n e w a y t r i p s p e r ye a r . T h i s s e r v i c e i s a v a i l a b l e t o o u r c o m m u n i t i e s ’ s e n i o r a n d d i s a b l e d ci t i z e n s . Co m m u n i t y Q u i c k F a c t s Ed u c a t i o n a n d L i t e r a c y An i n d i v i d u a l ’ s e d u c a t i o n i s r e l a t e d t o t h e i r e m p l o ym e n t a n d i n c o m e op p o r t u n i t i e s w h i c h a r e i m p o r t a n t i n d i c a t o r s o f t h e h e a l t h o f a c o m m u n i t y . (2 0 0 6 n u m b e r s ) • 32 . 7 % o f L u n e n b u r g C o u n t y r e s i d e n t s h a v e l e s s t h a n a h i g h s c h o o l ed u c a t i o n . • 53 % o f L u n e n b u r g C o u n t y r e s i d e n t s h a v e a h i g h s c h o o l e d u c a t i o n o r l e s s . • Ap p r o x i m a t e l y 3 9 % o f N o v a S c o t i a n s h a v e d i f f i c u l t y re a d i n g , w r i t i n g a n d un d e r s t a n d i n g w r i t t e n i n f o r m a t i o n . • 50 % o f N o v a S c o t i a n s h a v e p o o r n u m e r a c y s k i l l s . Fo c u s A r e a s • Al l T h a t K i d s C a n B e • Fr o m P o v e r t y t o P o s s i b i l i t y • He a l t h y P e o p l e S t r o n g C o m m u n i t i e s Ou r M a n a g e d P r o g r a m s Ou r M a n a g e d P r o g r a m s On e o f O u r L o c a l P a r t n e r P r o j e c t s Ou r P r o v i n c i a l P a r t n e r Ou r L o c a l l y F u n d e d P a r t n e r s & Pr o g r a m s Fo r o u r 2 0 1 6 / 2 0 1 7 - A l l o c a t i o n p e r i o d Th e U n i t e d W a y o f L u n e n b u r g C o u n t y i n v e s t e d $ 1 7 5 , 4 6 2 i n 2 7 p r o g r a m s Ou r L o c a l l y F u n d e d P a r t n e r s & P r o g r a m s $116,144 Ou r L o c a l l y F u n d e d P a r t n e r s & P r o g r a m s $22,578 $2 0 , 6 6 0 Ou r L o c a l l y F u n d e d P a r t n e r s & P r o g r a m s $20,000 $1 , 5 0 0 We c a n o n l y m a k e t h e s e c o m m u n i t y in v e s t m e n t s b e c a u s e o f o u r d o n o r s . Pe r h a p s p e o p l e l i k e y o u . If e v e r y s i n g l e w o r k i n g p e r s o n i n L u n e n b u r g Co u n t y i n v e s t e d j u s t $ 0 . 1 5 p e r d a y w i t h t h e Un i t e d W a y w e w o u l d r a i s e o v e r $ 1 . 2 m i l l i o n ea c h a n d e v e r y y e a r . Co m m u n i t y B a s e d S u p p o r t Th e U n i t e d W a y i s p o w e r e d by 7 5 + v o l u n t e e r s . Th a n k s t o t h e e f f o r t s o f o u r B o a r d a n d Al l o c a t i o n C o m m i t t e e M e m b e r s + o u r wo r k p l a c e c a m p a i g n v o l u n t e e r s w e a r e a b l e to k e e p c o s t s l o w a n d p u t t h e m a x i m u m an o u n t o f m o n e y b a c k i n t o t h e c o m m u n i t y . Wa y s T o G e t I n v o l v e d • Ru n a w o r k p l a c e c a m p a i g n a t y o u r o f f i c e o r bu s i n e s s . • Ho s t a s p e c i a l e v e n t i n s u p p o r t o f t h e Un i t e d W a y o f L u n e n b u r g C o u n t y . • Ma k e a p e r s o n a l o n l i n e d o n a t i o n . Re m e m b e r . Al l M o n e y R a i s e d I n L u n e n b u r g Co u n t y S t a y s I n L u n e n b u r g C o u n t y . Qu e s t i o n s ? ? United Way Lunenburg County Improving lives locally. PO Box 244, Bridgewater NS B4V 2W9 902-530-3072 Lunenburgcounty.unitedway.ca Give. Volunteer. Act. Spring 2016 Since 2003 the United Way of Lunenburg County has invested in Lunenburg County kids, youth, families, women, seniors and communities. These investments have provided numerous mentoring opportunities to kids and youth, have helped to improve the quality of life for many of our residents and have assisted residents when they had no one else to turn to or no place else to go. The investments that have been made in the community by the United Way of Lunenburg County have been substantial, totaling over $1.5 million. These financial investments have also provided many of our valued local community institutions with the financial stability needed to be better and to do more. Some examples of our long term financial commitments include: PRO Kids $177,000 Big Brothers Big Sisters $135,000 YMCA $122,500 St Vincent de Paul $120,000 Fox Point Community Centre $26,000 Harbour House $50,132 Chester Community Wheels $39,100 Bridgewater Senior Wheels $30,000 Second Story Women’s Centre $47,000 Hinchinbrook Farm $29,820 SS Senior Safety Coordinator $26,900 As a local, community based organization we are completely reliant on donations from the local community. Simply, the more money we can raise in the community, the more money we can put back into the community. Because the money raised by the United Way has to stay in Lunenburg County, this makes the United Way of Lunenburg County one of the best investments that you can make in your community. As community leaders you know firsthand that local and provincial governments are struggling to balance the needs of their constituents with the financial reality and capacity of their taxpayers. But opportunities related to local programing, program enhancements and exciting new programs don’t have to be diminished or to end. To help strengthen our communities and our frontline service providers here in Lunenburg County we would encourage you, whenever possible, to promote the value of supporting your local United Way. A safe and supportive community is everyone’s responsibility. MUNICIPALITY OF THEDISTRICT OF CHESTER REQUEST FOR DIRECTIONREPORT TO:Warden Webber and Municipal Council MembersSUBMITTED BY:Matthew Davidson,P.Eng.Director of Engineering and Public WorksDATE:April 20, 2016SUBJECT:Chester Village Water SummaryORIGIN:Committee of Whole______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ CURRENT SITUATION:At the February 4th, 2016 Committee of Whole meeting,Council requested staff to list and summarizethe various reports regarding the future water system for the Village of Chester. REQUEST FOR DIRECTION:Further discussion and direction from Council is required to determine the next steps and way forwar das it relates to future water supply for the Village of Chester. BACKGROUND/SUMMARY:A review of Municipal files, reports and various documents has been completed and date back to 1967.A summary report was completed by a former Planning Director and addresses up to 2009, attached.A brief Summary of Reports is listed below: In 1967, Paul Wendt Limited completed a feasibility study on central water for the Village andrecommended Spectacle Lake as the source. He suggested a pump house near Stanford LakeRoad and an elevated tank reservoir near the fire station in Chester. Total cost estimate in 1967was $1,089,550. In 1982, Interprovincial Engineering Limited reported on the feasibility of using groundwaterfrom wells as a water supply for various parts of Chester Municipality. Recommendations weremade for geological studies and test wells but no further work was completed. In 1987, Interprovincial Engineering Limited followed up on the previous 1967 report topropose Spectacle Lake with a pump house and treatment plant near the intersection ofHighway 3 and Target Hill Road. An elevated reservoir tank could be located at the Fire Hall orHaddon Hill. Total cost in 1987 estimated at $3.3 million. In 2009, Earth-Water Concepts Limited prepared a report called Spectacle Lake HydrologicalAssessment to verify the water quality and quantity from Spectacle Lake . It stated the waterquality is very good and sufficient quantity for the Chester Village under current NSEregulations. In March 2011, Earth-Water Concepts Limited prepared a second report (Phase 2) calledSpectacle Lake Hydrological Assessment.Further monitoring recorded to support the capacityof Spectacle Lake to serve as a possible water supply to the Village of Chester.The reportrecommended further monitoring and efforts to purchase land/develop policies to control land use within the watershed. Additional data related and supply/security relatedrecommendations were also included. In April 2011, KVM Consultants Limited prepared a report, Future Water Supply, Village ofChester and Area. The reports intent was to establish infrastructure requirements and identifypotential sites for the major components such as water treatment plant, booster station andstorage facilities. The assumptions were that Spectacle Lake was to be used as the raw watersource and a new water treatment plant and reservoir located near Stanford Lake. The proposedwater service boundary encompassed Shoreham Village and the Rink along Hwy 3 to StanfordLake and the entire Chester Village within.The cost estimates for the proposed water systemincluding engineering was $13 million. A letter review dated June 7, 2012 prepared by SNC Lavalin on the Future Water Supply Report(by KVM Consultants, May 2011) provided minimal comments and overall in agreeance withthe report. A letter report by SNC Lavalin, Chester Business District Water Supply –Feasibility Study wasprepared on the potential of a potable water supply to serve the business district of Chester.The report included a proposed well location and service area, a predicted well yield, a highlevel design system, and an opinion of probable cost for the water treatment and distributionsystems (two options). The opinion of probable cost is between $428,000 and $453,000 andincludeda 20% contingency. In relation to the second report prepared by Earth-Water Concepts Limited, dated March 2011,the Engineering and Public Works Department has been working on some of therecommendations. Specifically monitoring the channel streamflow’s and lake water levels tobuild a long term hydrologic record of Spectacle Lake. Furthermore, we have constructed apermanent lake gauging station.The Engineering and Public Works Department is workingunder the assumption that this fiscal year will be the last year of lake monitoring based onprevious senior management and Council discussions.Over the last three years,theMunicipalityhas not been actively acquiring land or identifying possible land flooding issuesbased upon safe water supply storage as recommended in the report.There are otherrecommendationsnot completed to date, but relate to work that must be done prior to anysignificant engineering design (i.e. watershed, flow, reservoir modelling,along with detailedsurvey of lake and adjacent lands) DISCUSSION:To be determined IMPLICATIONS: 1 Policy: 2 Financial/Budgetary:N/A 3 Environmental: Not applicable 4 Strategic Plan:2.Continually improve public satisfaction with municipal services;3.Ensure sufficient infrastructure is available to best serve our residents andbusinesses; 5 Work Program Implications N/A ATTACHMENTS:2009-05-19_Report Chester Village Area Water Supply Security OPTIONS:1.Select a central water option.2.Defer any decision on the matter and direct staff to bring back further information as identifiedby Council.3.Continue with Spectacle Lake Monitoring Prepared BY Christa Rafuse, P. Eng Date March 15, 2016Reviewed BY Matthew S. Davidson, P. Eng Date March 18, 2016Authorized BY Tammy Wilson Date MUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CHESTER 4 PO Box 20, Chester, NS BOJ 1JO 186 Central Street, Chester, NS Telephone: 902-275-2599 Facsimile: 902-275-2598 REPORT Chester Village Area WATER SUPPLY SECURITY 19 May 2009 1.0 INTRODUCTION In 1967 Chester Municipal Council received a report from Paul Wendt Limited on the feasibility of central water supplies and central sewage systems in Western Shore and Chester Village. For the Chester Village Area, he recommended Spectacle Lake as the water supply source. He felt the pump house should be near the Stanford Lake Road, and the reservoir should be an elevated tank near the fire station in Chester Village. The total cost was estimated to be about $1,089,550 in 1967 dollars. In the early 1970's Chester Council put in a central sewage system in Chester Village and in Western Shore, but did not construct either central water supply system. In 1982 the Lunenburg County District Planning Commission received a report from Interprovincial Engineering Limited on the feasibility of using groundwater from wells as a water supply for various parts of Chester Municipality. The report recommended further geological studies and test wells to determine whether there is any specific area in which the theoretical ground water supply could be developed into a practical central water system. No further work was done in this direction. In 1987 Chester Council received a report from Interprovincial Engineering Limited which updated the 1967 proposal to use Spectacle Lake. This report also recommended Spectacle Lake. It recommended a pumphouse and treatment plant near the intersection of Target Hill Road with Old Trunk 3, and an elevated reservoir, which could be near the fire station on Central Street elevation 30 metres)or would better be placed at Haddon Hill (elevation 70 metres). The total cost was estimated to be about $3.3 million in 1987 dollars. In 2009 Chester Council received a report from earth -Water Concepts Limited which looked closely at the water quality and water quantity available from Spectacle Lake. That report concludes that Spectacle lake has a very good water quality and that it has sufficient quantity to satisfy the needs of the Chester Village Area under the current regulations of the Department of Environment. Planning Department 2 2.0 FIGURES AND APPENDICES Figure 1 Spectacle Lake Watershed Figure 2 Property at East end of the Lake Figure 3 Property at West (outlet) end of the Lake 3.0 PLANNING FOR CENTRAL WATER SUPPLY Poor quality of well water is a problem in the Chester Village Area. Many of these wells go dry in the summer, especially in the core of the Village from North Street southward to the ocean. People have talked for many years about having a central water supply in the Village. In fact, there was a private seasonal (summer only) water supply during the earlier part of the 20`h century. Climate is changing. Although this paper is no place to discuss how much of that change is related to human activity, the fact is we do not know whether the next few decades will be drier or wetter than the last few decades in this part of the world. Given the uncertainties of climate change, as well as the certainty that the well water situation in the Chester Village area cannot improve much, and will only get worse as population increases, Chester Municipal Council needs to plan for a central water supply in the Chester Village Area. All the reports commissioned by Council point to Spectacle lake as the preferred water source. Planning for future water supply should follow this advice. This will involve modest expenditures of staff time and capital investment over a number of years. The object of this work should be to secure the quality of the water in Spectacle Lake and to secure ownership of the key pieces of land for the dam, pumping station, treatment plant, and reservoir. The sooner this work is done, the less the cost of acquiring the key assets and the less the cost of treating the water when the time comes to build the water system. This work should be done with a very long view. The Town of Mahone Bay has been using Oakland Lake as a water supply for 61 years. The Town of Lunenburg has been using Dares Lake for a water supply for over 100 years. In both those cases, the reservoirs, treatment plants, and main distribution systems have been in the same locations since the beginning. Although there is no immediate movement to construct the system for Chester Village, this is the time to make the key investments which will secure the water supply and distribution system. 4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS Planning Department k. The recommendations fall into four broad categories: design of the overall system, collection of long-term data on the water supply, land acquisition at the Lake, and land acquisition for treatment and distribution. 4.1 System Design The preliminary studies in 1967 and 1987 had slightly different layouts for the treatment and distribution systems. Either one could work today. It is recommended that Council have our municipal engineering consultant update these reports and recommend sites for the facilities so that Council can negotiate with the landowners and buy the sites. The 2009-2010 operating budget for the Planning Department includes an allowance for this work. 4.2 Long-term Data It is recommended that Council collect long-term data on the water supply as set out in the 2009 report by earth -Water Concepts Ltd. including: install an automated weather station at the Municipal Building to collect rainfall data. install an automated water level logger on Spectacle Lake maintain the existing automated water level logger on the Spectacle Lake outlet Monitor the chemistry of the water in the Spectacle Lake outflow on a quarterly basis for a year or two. Monitor the chemistry and the level of the water in the one stream feeding into the Lake for a year or two. The 2009-2010 operating budget for the Planning Department includes an allowance for this work. 4.3 Watershed Lands It is recommended that Council actively seek to buy lands within the Spectacle Lake watershed according to these priorities: Lakeshore properties at the eastern end of the Lake which have easy access from Duncan Road, and which either have cottages now or might be attractive for cottage building. The three properties in this category are shown on Figure 2. Every alternative should be considered in negotiating for these lands, including life interests, long-term Planning Department 4 cutting rights and long-term leases to the existing owners. Lakeshore and stream shore properties at the west (outlet) end of the Lake which would secure the area around the existing dam and secure the access road to the dam. The five properties in this category are shown on Figure 3. Other Lakeshore properties. Other lands within the Spectacle Lake watershed. The 2009-2010 capital budget submitted by the Planning Department includes a small allowance for lake shore land purchase. Succeeding yearly capital budgets should include no less amounts, and preferably larger amounts. 4.4 Treatment and Distribution System When the system design study mentioned in recommendation 4.1 above is finished, it is recommended that Council actively seek to buy the key parcels of land identified in the consultants study. The 2009-2010 capital budget submitted by the Planning Department does not include any allowance for these purchases. In years 2010-2011 and following years, capital budgets should include allowances for these key purchases. 19 May 2009 Geoff MacDonald Planning Director. May 19, 2009P:\TEXACHEV\CHEVPRI\Spectacle Lake09-10\SecurityPlan-rpt.wpd Planning Department t FIGURE 1 Spectacle Lake Watershed Scale 1:20,000 Legend 0 500 1,000 z000 3,000 4,000 5,000 Feet 4Watershed _60undary Meters /V 0 100 200 400 600 800 1,000 FIGURE 2 Property at East End of the Lake Legend Watershed—Boundary East_End_MUNICIPAL East End_DESIRABLE Scale 1:10,000 0 200 400 800 1,200 1,600 2000 Feet Meters %1/ 0 50 100 200 300 400 500 FIGURE 3 Property at West End of the Lake Legend Scale 1:5000 QMIershed_Boundaty o 100 200 400 600 Boo 1,00o West_End_MUNICIPAL Feet '/! Meters N West_End DESIRABLE 0 25 50 100 150 200 250 MUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CHESTER REQUEST FOR DECISION REPORT TO Municipal Council SUBMITTED BY Marianne Gates, Senior Economic Development Officer Tara Maguire, Community Development Director DATE April 15, 2016 SUBJECT Wind Reserve Grants ORIGIN Policy P-79 Wind Energy Revenue Policy Grants Program ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ CURRENT SITUATION: Council established Policy 79- Wind Energy Revenue Policy in 2014. The policy designates one third of the wind revenues for operating reserves, one third to fund economic development projects and one third for community based projects/infrastructure. Council has requested that staff provide draft guidelines for the use of funds from the Wind Reserve. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council adopt the guidelines as presented and direct staff to implement the guidelines as part of the grant and budget process. BACKGROUND: In September 2015, Council attended a workshop to review our existing grant program. A follow up workshop was held in December. At that time, Council requested that staff develop some draft guidelines that would be used to determine when funds would be used from the one third set aside for Economic Development projects and when funds would be used from the one third for Community Development. Discussion was held regarding the following: • Internal operations or would we fund external projects/grants • Requirements for each program • Would we only fund new programs/projects or would we use the funds for on-going operations • What frequency would we provide funds for an organization - Ongoing? One time? • Maximum/Minimum grant amount? DISCUSSION: To date the following projects have been funded by each fund: Economic Development • Land acquisition ($100,000) • Signage ($20,000) • Smart Trees ($5,000) Community Development • Art Centre ($5,000) • OHC ($100,000) • Forest Heights Courtyard ($10,000) • New Ross 200 anniversary celebrations ($15,000 – committed in 2017) In January Council adopted a Sponsorship Policy as well as new guidelines for our Grant programs. As part of this, a new major projects grant was established. Staff feels that when opting to fund projects from the Wind Revenue reserves, the major grant program would be used. If the project meet the criteria outline in the draft guidelines provided for the Wind Reserve funds for the Major Project grant would come from either the Economic Development Fund or the Community Development Fund. If a project did not meet the criteria, Council could consider funding through annual Council Grants (general tax revenue). In addition to grants to external organization, the funds would also be used to fund internal projects as outlined in the attached guidelines. IMPLICATIONS: 1 Policy: The guidelines are not policy and would not require policy amendments or an official process to amend, nor would they bind council to the policy. The guidelines would provide a framework for utilizing funds from the Wind Reserves. 2 Financial/Budgetary: Utilizing these funds would ensure some consistency and direction on how the wind reserve funds will be allocated to various projects. There are no additional costs associated with adopting these guidelines. 3 Environmental: n/a 4 Strategic Plan: The program supports the following strategic goals of Council: 1. Maintain a high level of fiscal responsibility; 2. Continually improve public satisfaction with municipal services; 3. Ensure sufficient infrastructure is available to best serve our residents and businesses; 4. Strengthen and support environmental, cultural, and social resources; 5. Promote conditions conducive to fostering economic prosperity. 5 Work Program Implications None identified at this time ATTACHMENTS: Draft Guidelines for Wind Reserve funds OPTIONS: 1. Council can adopt the guidelines as presented and direct staff to implement the guidelines as part of the grant and budget process. 2. Council Can direct staff to revise the guidelines 3. Council can decide not to adopt guidelines. Prepared BY Tara Maguire Date 4/15/16 Reviewed BY Date Authorized BY Tammy Wilson Date April 15, 2016 Wind Reserve Grant Guidelines The Municipality of the District of Chester has adopted Policy P-79, Wind Energy Revenue Policy, which requires that council distribute revenue derived from wind project as follows: - One-third to operational reserves - One-third to Economic Development - One-third to Community Development These guidelines are tool to assist Council decide on where to fund from this revenue source. General: The amount will be confirmed at year end for use the following fiscal year. Potential projects to be considered are to be submitted in January for the following fiscal years’ budget deliberations. Economic Development Projects: • All projects to be lead internally with potential partnership opportunities with outside organizations • Approved by council with recommendation from the Senior Economic Development Officer • Projects a minimum amount of $10,000 • Remaining amount to be placed back in reserve fund for use in subsequent years. Community Development Projects: • Any unused amount to be placed back in reserve fund for use in subsequent years. 1. Internal: 25% of per annum amount to be Internal Projects • Council may generate ideas and then consult community. • Approved by council with recommendation from the Director of Community Development. • Can be studies, infrastructure or significant one time projects. 2. External: (Not lead by MODC) 75% of per annum amount to Major Project Grants. Eligibility - Must complete a major project grant application. - Projects shall be a minimum amount of $10,000. - Must be new projects. - Should be primarily capital projects (not annual operational costs), programs, one time celebratory projects, or studies. - Potential projects must demonstrate support of one or more of the pillars of sustainability in the following areas: o Community capacity; o Environment capacity; o Economic capacity; or o Social capacity. - Must demonstrate ability to be financially sustainable after initial funding. - Organizations/Projects shall meet the Major Grant Eligibility Criteria established by Council under the Council Grant Program. - Organizations are only eligible for one grant from the Municipality each fiscal year. Application Procedure - Applications must be submitted by January 31. - Grants will be reviewed during budget deliberations and the amount of funding approved will be determined at that time. - Financial statements for the most recent year must be provided. - A detailed project budget shall be provided, showing expenditure and all funding sources. - Partnerships will be viewed as an asset. - Projects can be multi- year. - If organizations have questions about the application or would like to receive assistance in completing the form, please contact the Community Development Director at 902- 275-2599 or email tmaguire@chester.ca - A completed report must be submitted to indicate how the funds were spent. Evaluation Applications will be reviewed using the following evaluation criteria: - Benefit to the community at large. - Demonstrate positive community impact. - Demonstrate financial need of the organization for grant funding. - Evidence of other financial partners and/or fundraising efforts. - Project alignment with one or more of the pillars of sustainability in the following areas: o Community capacity; o Environment capacity; o Economic capacity; or o Social capacity. MUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CHESTER REQUEST FOR DECISION REPORT TO Municipal Council SUBMITTED BY Tara Maguire, Community Development Director DATE May 5, 2015 SUBJECT Award LiDAR Collection and Digital Elevation Model RFP ORIGIN Council Motion 2016-139 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council endorse the recommendation of the joint municipal RFP evaluation committee and award the request for proposals for the LiDAR Collection and Digital Elevation Model to XEOS Imaging Inc. in the amount of $43,428.75 plus HST. BACKGROUND On April 5, 2016 Council gave pre-budget approval for $130,000 to fly LiDAR coverage and to identify floodplains for all inland waterways. After discussing the project with the GeoNova Staff decided to break the project into two phases. The first phase being the collection of the LiDAR and the generation of the digital elevation model. Phase 2 will be to procure the floodplain identification work. On April 15, 2016 the Municipality of the District of Lunenburg and the Municipality of the District of Chester issued a joint request for proposals (RFP) for LiDAR Collection and Digital Elevation Model. An addendum was issued on April 22, 2016 and the RFP closed at 3:00 p.m. on April 28, 2016. The RFP requested a price to acquire approximately 3,800 km2 of LiDAR data and to produce a digital elevation model (DEM). The RFP also asked for pricing on optional value added products that can be generated using the LiDAR data (such as Building outlines, contours, hillshade, aspect model, and slope model to list a few). The RFP was structured to allow the Province to potentially join the RFP to acquire an additional coverage 6,400 km2 area. DISCUSSION Six proposal were received by the deadline. Proponent names and quotes are described in the table below: Technical Cost Proposal Total Score Average Technical Rank Price Score Cost Rank Overall Average Overall Rank XEOS 58.8 1 $ 98,650.00 30.0 1 88.8 1 Leading Edge Geomatics 49.4 4 $ 312,934.00 9.5 6 58.9 4 PHB 52 2 $ 100,663.04 29.4 2 81.4 2 GeoDigital 50.4 3 $ 253,200.00 11.7 5 62.1 3 Clean Harbors 32.8 6 $ 203,125.00 14.6 3 47.4 6 LiDAR Services International 43.8 5 $ 215,224.00 13.8 4 57.6 5 Note that the prices above include coverage for both MODL and MODC and exclude HST. The top three proposals overall were XEOS, PHB, and GeoDigital. The evaluation committee included staff from both municipalities as well as two Provincial staff from the Nova Scotia Geomatics Centre. The evaluation committee reached a consensus that XEOS proposal offered the best value to the municipalities. The XEOS proposal received the highest technical score and offered an excellent price. As a result Staff are recommending that the award cost included XEOS’ optional items for the Lunenburg County coverage area for a total project cost of $117,375. The optional items include the following items: • Building Outlines and Contours (minimum size of buildings to be determined) • Digital Flood Plain modelling (this will be rudimentary but will provide a some data, does not eliminate need to do phase 2 of this project) • Intensity Model • TIN (triangulated irregular network, used to model the earth’s surface) • Digital Surface Model • CHM Hillshade Model (shadows drawn on a map to simulate the effect of the sun's rays over the varied terrain of the land) • Slope Model • Aspect Model (what compass direction a slope faces) • Hard and Soft Breaklines (i.e. identifying edges of cliffs etc) • Shoreline • Low Confidence Area (areas where there are potential data errors) As a potential partner, the Province has requested a change to the number of points of data that we collect. The RFP had a minimum specification of 1 point per m2. The province is interested in obtaining data that would be useful in forestry applications and would require 6 points per m2. The new specification would exceed our specifications but allow us to meet our needs. As this is a request for proposals, and not a tender, legal counsel advices we have the ability to negotiate changes. In preparing the contract for this, staff will add a clause that will allow the option negotiate changes to the detailed specifications or to later purchase nay data that is collected as part of this project. Any additional costs to the municipality would need to come back to council for approval as we are recommending approval based on the existing specifications. We are currently in negotiations with the province on regarding any additional costs. It is staff’s position that neither MODC nor MODL should incur additional costs for any change in specifications that are requested by the Province. BUDGET IMPLICATIONS Pre-budget approval for $130,000 was approved by Council on April 5, 2016. The Province has indicated that they would provide 25% (staff are awaiting for official confirmation). The cost of the LiDAR, DEM and extra optional data processing is $117,375. MODL share (63%) is $73,946.25 plus HST MODC share (37%) is $43,428.75 plus HST STRATEGIC PLAN 1. Strategic Plan Goal # 4: Strengthen and support environmental, cultural, and social resources. CONCLUSION The Evaluation Committee is recommending that the RFP be awarded XEOS. XEOS received the highest technical score for their proposal and submitted the lowest price for the mandatory bid items. Staff recommend that Council also purchase the optional data processing products from XEOS for the total amount of $117,375 plus HST with MODC’s share being $43,428.75 plus HST. This amount represents MODC’s contribution before the potential reduction of 25% from the Province. Prepared BY Tara Maguire Date 5/5/2016 Reviewed BY Date Authorized BY Tammy Wilson Date 5/6/2016